Which LDS Truth Claims are Falsifiable?

[ttribe]

Arthur C. Clarke stole it in 1973.

Darn...and here I thought I was really onto something original.

[Lance in TX]

Awwww...you stole my punchline.

Great minds think alike?????

Arthur C. Clarke stole it in 1973.

Awesome author! Brilliant!

[DrW]

Your objection is rejected as well.

The Earth was the center of the Universe. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Sponteaneous generation. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Nothing is smaller than an Atom. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Man could not go to the Moon. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Nothing is smaller than Electrons, Neutrons, and Protons. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Should I continue.

As science progresses, what was thought of as "magic" or "impossible" is often proven false. Usually it is proven false by a more complete understanding of the natural laws.

Your examples above reflect a very poor understanding of the history of science and of science itself. This list sounds like something you might have been taught in high school, and it is not accurate. More importantly, it is not to the point. What do any of these examples have to do with claimed sea voyage of over 10,000 miles in powerless drifting barges?

(Just so you don't make the same mistake again, the examples you cite are traditional or popular beliefs about science, not science itself. If you had mentioned the paradigm shift that took place with special and general relativity, that is, the inter-conversion of matter and energy, you would have been correct. As for examples you did cite, I will leave it to you to figure out why they are not what you claim.)

[Mudcat]

1. In your view, which LDS truth claims are falsifiable?

None. Religious claims are typically unfalsifiable.

Off the cuff, I could say that in regards to the BoA, no one has reached the same conclusion from examination as JS did.

Then, you could say, that God revealed things to him in process of translation or whatever... and I could not disprove the claim.

I will point out that it is possible to have several unfalsifiable claims that address the same topic. At the end of the day, given non-contradiction, one of them is right or none of them is.

IOW... "lack of falsifiability" does not equal "truth" rather "lack of falsifiability" equals "can't be proven not true"

[Balzer]

This is a facinating thread, and DrW's post, we must admit, was well thought out, informative, and - so far - irrefutable. But, isn't it entirely possible that this voyage took place just as at least one person suggested, that is by way of miracle? I for one believe that God is perfectly capable of performing miracles. Wouldn't a better discussion in response to the OP be of things that do not allow for miracles, such as the BoA stuff or maybe some of the prophecies?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[DrW]

Please define the overall probability...I have training and experience in statistical analysis...I promise I can follow your answer.

You were there in 2500 BC? Cool...I have a whole bunch of other questions for you. Okay, sarcasm aside, I have reason to experience at least some level of doubt regarding the veracity of a claim of absolute impossibility when dealing with the time periods we are discussing. The fact is, the further you go back, the greater your probability of error in your analysis.

Okay. Let's start with a simple Bayesian type analysis. We have some 22 people who started the voyage. We are not informed of any deaths and meet many of the characters again in the new world. The chances of any individual person dying under the conditions described are high.

We have: spoiled food, contact with urine and feces, and inadequate ventilation. Joseph Smith apparently did not understand that carbon dioxide (MW 44 amu), is heavier than (oxygen MW 32 amu), or (nitrogen MW 28 amu) and water (18 amu). Carbon dioxide would therefore collect in the bottom of the vessel, while lighter gasses, including vital oxygen, escaped through the vent hole in the top (if it were open).

Any hole that could be sealed watertight would have been too small to keep a barge adequately ventilated, even when opened. With humans and animals on board, in â??closed vent hatch conditionsâ?, the crew would have been dead within a day or so . Storms requiring closed hatch conditions last longer than that, and we are told th esind blew continually.

So, given the risks of bad food, bad water, rough seas, hypoxia, dehydration, heat stroke, drowning, disease, physical injury, I would estimate the chances of any individual surviving for 344 days at far less than 5%. If you donâ??t like this number consider the survival numbers (7%) from Magellanâ??s crew (Magellan himself perished), on a similar voyage with powered sailing ships, and experienced crew, and frequent stops for re-supply several millennia later.

So to a first order estimate, the chance of all 22 surviving is already smaller than my â??impossibilityâ? threshold. We still must consider the fact that the ships had no steering and were little more than driftwood. Now we multiply the survival chances by the â??all eight barges arrive at one place together chancesâ? and we are well beyond improbability.

[ttribe]

Okay. Let's start with a simple Bayesian type analysis. We have some 22 people who started the voyage. We are not informed of any deaths and meet many of the characters again in the new world. The chances of any individual person dying under the conditions described are high.

We have: spoiled food, contact with urine and feces, and inadequate ventilation. Joseph Smith apparently did not understand that carbon dioxide (MW 44 amu), is heavier than (oxygen MW 32 amu), or (nitrogen MW 28 amu) and water (18 amu). Carbon dioxide would therefore collect in the bottom of the vessel, while lighter gasses, including vital oxygen, escaped through the vent hole in the top (if it were open).

Any hole that could be sealed watertight would have been too small to keep a barge adequately ventilated, even when opened. With humans and animals on board, in â??closed vent hatch conditionsâ?, the crew would have been dead within a day or so . Storms requiring closed hatch conditions last longer than that, and we are told th esind blew continually.

Man...do I wish I had a picture of that model, because it still fits the descriptions in the Book of Ether and looks nothing like what you are talking about.

So, given the risks of bad food, bad water, rough seas, hypoxia, dehydration, heat stroke, drowning, disease, physical injury, I would estimate the chances of any individual surviving for 344 days at far less than 5%. If you donâ??t like this number consider the survival numbers (7%) from Magellanâ??s crew (Magellan himself perished), on a similar voyage with powered sailing ships, and experienced crew, and frequent stops for re-supply several millennia later.

Your failing to state your a priori assumption here...care to guess what it is?

So to a first order estimate, the chance of all 22 surviving is already smaller than my â??impossibilityâ? threshold.

Which you have yet to quantify.

We still must consider the fact that the ships had no steering and were little more than driftwood.

A HUGE assumption on your part.

Now we multiply the survival chances by the â??all eight barges arrive at one place together chancesâ? and we are well beyond improbability.

Still no quantification. Your measure of "improbability" is still only in your head (since you haven't quantified it) and cannot be reasonably replicated or objectively measured...that sounds familiar.

[DrW]

Well, let's start with what is definitely God's work in the scriptural account.

1. The Lord commands the Brother of Jared to depart into the wilderness, and guided them through it "continually". (Ether 2)

It is during this journey that they acquire the experience in building barges mentioned. These barges were built to cross over bodies of water during the overland journey of the Jaredites.

So, the question of why there isn't evidence of other, similar barges in the old world misses the mark - the Jaredites acquired their skills in barge building while they were on their way "into that quarter where there never had man been." It seems quite possible, in fact, that the Lord also supplied the basic design for these barges, as He was leading them continually. When they reach the coast, the Lord directs them to build more barges similar to the ones they used over smaller bodies of water.

2. The stones to light the way (Ether 3)

How does the Lord prepare the stones? All we know is that the Brother of Jared observed Him touching them with his finger, one by one, and that they then gave off light. What else was done to them remains unsaid.

3. Did the Jaredites rely on oceanic currents to carry them to the New World?

No. "And it came to pass that the Lord God caused that there should be a furious wind blow upon the face of the waters, towards the promised land; and thus they were tossed upon the waves of the sea before the wind...And it came to pass that the wind did never cease to blow towards the promised land while they were upon the waters; and thus they were driven forth before the wind. " (Ether 6)

4. How could these craft survive submersion and resurface?

Also expressly the work of the Lord: "..therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the waters."

5. What about keeping their food stores useful without fire?

Well, it's not explicitely part of the Jaredite account, but we find a possible explanation in the the Book of Nephi: "And so great were the blessings of the Lord upon us, that while we did live upon raw meat in the wilderness, our women did give plenty of suck for their children, and were strong, yea, even like unto the men; and they began to bear their journeyings without murmurings. ...For the Lord had not hitherto suffered that we should make much fire, as we journeyed in the wilderness; for he said: I will make thy food become sweet, that ye cook it not;"

So, you miss the point in saying "this couldn't occur under normal conditions" - the crossing of the Jaredites to the Promised Land was specifically miraculous, helped on every step of the way by the Lord. Unless you can show that the methods the Lord used wouldn't produce the reported results - and you have to exactly duplicate those methods in order to show this - your criticisms are hollow.

Jason,

You are not paying attention. With regard to wind vs current, the freeboard of these barges would make it so the wind had little effect on where they went. The currents determine where the powerless barges would go. Did you not read the account of the German experiment with the bottle?

With regard to "learning how to build barges" what waters did they cross that required ocean-going barges? Just because Joseph Smith wrote it down does not make it so.

Why not try arguing the facts instead of your (unfounded) beliefs?

Here is another thing to remember. When trying to support or prove a point of fact, or deny falsification in a discussion on falsifiability and falsification or any other discussion of facts, it does no good to quote scripture. Why would scripture be convincing in a discussion wherein the point is that the scripture itself is fiction?

[Jason]

This is a facinating thread, and DrW's post, we must admit, was well thought out, informative, and - so far - irrefutable.

That's not the word I would have used.

But, isn't it entirely possible that this voyage took place just as at least one person suggested, that is by way of miracle? I for one believe that God is perfectly capable of performing miracles. Wouldn't a better discussion in response to the OP be of things that do not allow for miracles, such as the BoA stuff or maybe some of the prophecies?

The BoA stuff and prophecies don't allow for miracles?

[Jason]

You are not paying attention.

If so then I have company. You certainly haven't listened to what I am trying to tell you.

With regard to wind vs current, the freeboard of these barges would make it so the wind had little effect on where they went. The currents determine where the powerless barges would go. Did you not read the account of the German experiment with the bottle?

How did you calculate the freeboard from the rather vague (and, I would think, inadequate for this purpose) description in Ether? Did you have time to paint your model and build it to scale?

With regard to "learning how to build barges" what waters did they cross that required ocean-going barges? Just because Joseph Smith wrote it down does not make it so.

I'm not sure off the top of my head - do you think there were no waters that had to be crossed in Asia at the time?

Here is another thing to remember. When trying to support or prove a point of fact, or deny falsification in a discussion on falsifiability and falsification or any other discussion of facts, it does no good to quote scripture. Why would scripture be convincing in a discussion wherein the point is that the scripture itself is fiction?

When one attempts to debunk scripture one should read it first. If said scripture boils down to "this was a miracle", trying to use current scientific understanding is typically a waste of effort.

[Lance in TX]

DrW,

Do you believe in any religion? Do you believe in God?

[selek]

Balzer, DrW's Miracle Elixir sounds awfully good and erudite, but like any other snake oil, it doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. First and foremost is his insistence that 'barge' can only mean an unpowered sea craft. This is an error in logic called a presentism fallacy- imposing modern values and definitions on previous cultures where they did not and do not apply. His second error is begging the question- he is imposing his own assumptions and guesswork onto a text that does NOT support them. You'll note that he keeps circling back to the idea that these barges were sealed, submarine-type craft- his entire argument hinges on this assumption. The reality is that this idea is more folklore than fact- the invention of landlubbers who couldn't tell you the difference between a ship rig and sloop rig. The text can be interpreted that way- but an honest reading does not require it. It can be taken in other ways- as has been pointed out. You'll note that DrW has studiously avoided addressing that point- and for good reason. Once you move past his errors and tortured readings, his whole premise collapses. We know that transoceanic voyages were possible- the Pheonicians in the eastern Mediterranean had trade routes stretching to the Horn of Africa and Britain a thousand years before Christ, Roman treasure fleets were sailing to India during the Savior's life and evidence suggests the Chinese were sending expeditions to North America as early as 1000 AD.

[Lance in TX]

Your examples above reflect a very poor understanding of the history of science and of science itself. This list sounds like something you might have been taught in high school, and it is not accurate. More importantly, it is not to the point. What do any of these examples have to do with claimed sea voyage of over 10,000 miles in powerless drifting barges?

(Just so you don't make the same mistake again, the examples you cite are traditional or popular beliefs about science, not science itself. If you had mentioned the paradigm shift that took place with special and general relativity, that is, the inter-conversion of matter and energy, you would have been correct. As for examples you did cite, I will leave it to you to figure out why they are not what you claim.)

Excuse me? They were all examples of believed scientific statements for the time period they were made.

Explain how each one of those was not an accurate scientific belief during the time period that they were made?

All of your examples are only valid if you do not believe that there is a God that knows more about the Laws of Nature than we do. I was pointing out that our understanding of the Laws of Nature might not be complete and that He might know more that YOU do (which I bet He does!).

Do you believe that Jesus walked on water?

Do you believe that Jesus quieted the storms?

Do you believe in the Ark of the Covenant and the powers that it held? And that the Levite Jews were able to use them?

Do you believe in the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal?

Do you believe in the story of Elisha and Naaman and Naaman being cured of leprosy by washing in the Jordan seven times?

Do you believe in Noah's Ark and how all of the animals were there and able to live on it for the time they did?

Do you believe in Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead?

Do you believe in Jesus curing the people with palsey and leprosy?

Can you explain any of these using your logic and science? Or maybe there is more than you know and understand happening?

[mfbukowski]

Honestly, I don't know what all the fuss is about here. We have all kinds of things in the scriptures which cannot be proven scientifically. Jonah and the whale, Noah's ark, talking donkeys -- the miracles of Jesus-- is this the first time you Mormons have thought about this?

You are missing the entire purpose of the scriptures and letting this ...fellow... walk all over you.

Is it suddenly surprising that the scriptures describe miracles? Either we accept that the scriptures 1- descibe miracles and are historically true, - regardless of science- full speed ahead, or 2-we believe that they are a combination of history allegory, and faith promoting stories, or 3- they are inspired fiction whose importance is to edify our lives.

Those are the three possibilities as I see them. Total science, partial allegory, total allegory. Take your pick. Regardless he is going to call you nasty names like "magical thinkers" Oh no! Not that! You mean you believe in miracles? Duh! Isn't that what faith is for??

Yes we are magical thinkers according to your definition. We see the magic and wonder of the world, we see the value of all the things science cannot verify, like morals, like how we know we are in love, we feel the spirit and know that God loves us. How do we know a sunset is beautiful and why does it enrich our lives? When we look up at the stars and feel very small amid that immensity and know that we can think and feel and know that we are part of something immense and yet feel intimately a part of it. Speaking for myself, if that is magic, bring it on.

[mfbukowski]

Can you explain any of these using your logic and science? Or maybe there is more than you know and understand happening?

Lance- we are obviously on the same wavelength- I was writing my post while you were writing yours! No, he doesn't belive any of those things

[Lance in TX]

Lance- we are obviously on the same wavelength- I was writing my post while you were writing yours! No, he doesn't belive any of those things

Yes I think we are.

Well.. if he does not believe in any of those things, then there is NO way to show that any of the LDS or any Religious claims are true. You have to have FAITH. I would say this discussion is at a dead-end with him then. There is not much we can PROVE that he cannot DISPROVE since neither of us has full knowledge of the Laws of Nature (no matter what he claims he knows). If he says he knows all about the Laws of Nature then he is deceiving hisself. Every scientist that I know (and I have known quite a number) say they do not know everything and are always looking to learn more about the Laws. They have an open mind. Even the Athiest ones that I have known say they do not know it all.

[mfbukowski]

Roman treasure fleets were sailing to India during the Savior's life and evidence suggests the Chinese were sending expeditions to North America as early as 1000 AD.

Not to mention the Polynesians crossing the Pacific repeatedly- and ending up where they wanted to go- using dead reckoning and -- canoes. In fact, one of King Kamehameha's achievements was expelling the Maoris of New Zealand from the island of Oahu. They had occupied it for years and had no trouble whatsoever shuttleing personnel and supplies as need from New Zealand for years. In fact Kamehameha had to use canons he got from the Europeans to get enough fire power to actually do it- that is how well the Maoris were entrenched.

[Balzer]

As I continue to read this thread I keep thinking of the poem "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue." Whether or not such a voyage was possible, is there an historical issue related to the discovery of America in the first place?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Balzer]

That's not the word I would have used.

The BoA stuff and prophecies don't allow for miracles?

Not as I understand them. Either Joseph Smith accurately/correctly translated the BoA or he didn't, and either his prophecies came to pass or they didn't, is kind of how I see the issues.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[mfbukowski]

As I continue to read this thread I keep thinking of the poem "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue." Whether or not such a voyage was possible, is there an historical issue related to the discovery of America in the first place?

Respectfully,

Balzer

There is a difference between historical facts and their interpretation. It is their interpretation that can be very ambiguous indeed. I don't doubt that Columbus came to America in 1492. But I think that you should ask the native Americans if he "discovered" it.

The rules of science keep changing also. Plato used to be a planet, now it's not. "Well is it or isn't it -- both can't be true!" Have we heard that around here just a bit? Science is a social construct - it's classifications are subject to change, debate and discussion. "What species of fish is this, and which line should we put it in?" "How do we define this phenomenon?" That is what science does- it creates reality.

I read an article recently about many species of fish being discovered in fish markets in Asia. These were unknown to science. If you had asked a scientist about a species with these certain characteristics, he would have said it didn't exist.

And yet the fishermen of asia knew the habits of the "unknown" fish, where to find them, how to fish for them, how to cook and prepare them and how they tasted for thousands of years. But they hadn't been "discovered" yet. They hadn't made it into the construct of "science" yet humans had been experiencing them in one way or another forever. They were "unexplained phenomena", and/or perhaps mythical stories told by ignorant natives, until a scientist saw them in the market, then suddenly they were real.

[Corky Wallace]

We know that transoceanic voyages were possible- the Pheonicians in the eastern Mediterranean had trade routes stretching to the Horn of Africa and Britain a thousand years before Christ, Roman treasure fleets were sailing to India during the Savior's life and evidence suggests the Chinese were sending expeditions to North America as early as 1000 AD.

But none of those involved the kind of limited seafaring capabilities extensively described by Ether & addressed by DrW. Let's accept that sails were attached to these "barges" / semi-submersibles. What about ventilation, hygene, etc?

Regarding the possibility of the "barges" shift in defintion, a naturalistic view of the detailed description of Ether seems to require heavy amounts of language distortion that renders the rest of the text suspect, it seems.

[Dan Urtnowski]

Hello, everyone.

Interesting topic.

After browsing the forums, there seem to be a number of falsifiable claims by the LDS faith that have been discussed at length.

Key elements of the Old Testament that would appear to give it validity are proven to not be historical. The history that it claims was generated thousands of years after events were supposed to have happened. Believers in the Old Testament, for the majority of its history, have interpreted it literally. Only as falsifiable claims were debunked, did people have a need to move to a more symbolic intepretation. This is relevant to the LDS faith, since the Old Testament is part of its canon.

'About the year 1000 B.C. there was nothing distinctive about the Jews ethnically, linguistically, politically or economically.'

Serapis

Key elements of Christianity as described in the New Testament are proven not to be accurate or historical. Once again, believers have had a very literal interpretation until claims are shown to be impossible. This is when interpretations changes to fit the facts, never mind that it has been presented as literal for most of its history. Beyond that, the current practices of the LDS church do not coincide with Christian practices from before 100AD (or after, I might contend). This means that the church is not a Restoration as it claims to be.

Mark had been the interpreter for Peter. And he wrote down as much as Peter told of the sayings and deeds of Christ â?? accurately, but not in order.

For he was not a hearer or follower of the Lord but, as I said, of Peter, who adapted his teaching as needed and did not arrange the sayings of the Lord in an orderly manner.

So, then, Matthew compiled the Sayings of the Lord in the Hebrew language. But everyone interpreted them as he could."

Elements in the Book of Mormon have proven not to be historical. I am sure most people are familiar with the infamous Smithsonian Letter. Horses were brought to the Americas by Europeans, and many other things that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon are simply not possible.

The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern. central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians cane into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Being Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of un smelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East.

No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archaeological remains in Mexico and archaeological remains in Egypt.

Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

I will try not to harp on DNA, but the refutation posted earlier is completely bogus and demonstrates an utter lack of understanding as to how we know who shares ancestry by examining DNA. There are better attempts in many posts at addressing the problems of the DNA evidence. However, it is pertinent that Mormons have historically believed that Native Americans were ancestors of the Hebrews. This was a widely held belief of the era, and is still a widely held belief of many faithful LDS. The evidence has forced a change in old beliefs and intepretations.

The Facsimiles in the Book of Abraham were interpreted incorrectly. The Kinderhook Plates, though recognized as authentic by the church for over 100 years, have proven to be false. Combined with the errors in the Book of Mormon, it is clear that Joseph Smith did not have the ability to translate ancient characters through divine means.

I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.

- Joseph Smith Jr. on the Kinderhook Plates

Joseph Smith Explanation

Explanation by Egyptologists

The Angel of the Lord.

"The soul of Osiris (which should have a human head)"

Abraham fastened upon an altar.

"Osiris coming to life on his couch, which is in the shape of a lion"

The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.

"The God Anubis (who should have a jackal's head) effecting the resurrection of Osiris"

The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.

"The funeral bed of Osiris"

The idolatrous god of Elkenah.

Canopic jar portraying Qebehsenuf with a falcon's head - one of the four sons of Horus

The idolatrous god of Libnah.

Canopic jar portraying Duamutef with a jackal's head - one of the four sons of Horus

The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.

Canopic jar portraying Hapy with an ape's head - one of the four sons of Horus

The idolatrous god of Korash.

Canopic jar portraying Imsety with a human head - one of the four sons of Horus

The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.

"The sacred crocodile, symbolic of the god Sedet"

Abraham in Egypt.

"Altar laden with offerings"

Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.

"An ornament peculiar to Egyptian art"

This leads us to personal revelation, which does not provide a consistent message from the holy ghost. Even Prophets vary on what information is generated from personal religious experiences. As long as there has been Mormons, there have been differences of opinion on doctrine.

The priesthood can be shown to be unreliable as it does not heal better than placebos, new age methods of healing, or the healing power of other religions. It can also be shown to be unreliable in that it has allowed for child molestors to be put in positions of authority over children, and has given positions of authority to people who are cheaters, drug smugglers, and even murderers. Patriarchal blessings are often slightly reworded scripts from the last few people that came through to receive one.

The revelation from Prophets has also been shown to be unreliable since different prophets produce different principles from the same source, God. Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to a black man, Elijah Abel. Brigham Young changed this principle. It took over hundred years to change back.

The fact that each of these things can be falsified is a blow to the validity of the church. Obviously, no TBMs here are going to accept any of them. The biggest obstacle you face is the modus operandi of your own apologetics. Multiple theories are presented to cast doubts on verified claims. from my point of view, the fact that all of these things are falsified actually creates a cohesive way to explain the world around us and fit human behavior quite nicely within that explanation. In order for the apologetics to be effective, a TBM must adopt a different theory with each problematic situation. Essentially, it is a version of situational beliefs where your beliefs change from paradigm to paradigm to fix each problem.

Deborah framed it perfectly in another post when she expressed what should be done with opposing facts. The problem is, there is no such thing as opposing facts, lest they not be facts, at all. The best explanations are the ones that work for situations that are good bad and indifferent to your own beliefs.

From my point of view, there is no need to create an imaginary science to explain how God travels faster than the speed of light. I do not need to explain how the word "horse" got into the Book of Mormon. I do not need to explain how the priesthood could fail over and over again to allow a child molester ended up in the Stake Presidency.

I hope that helps give people something to think about.

[DrW]

As I continue to read this thread I keep thinking of the poem "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue." Whether or not such a voyage was possible, is there an historical issue related to the discovery of America in the first place?

Respectfully,

Balzer

Balzer,

If you think that crossing the Atlantic Ocean in sail-powered ships that could be steered, using navigational instruments, can be compared to crossing the Indian and Atlantic (or Pacific) ocean(s) with eight drifting barges, then you need to think a little more.

Imagine the Nina and the Pinta and the Santa Maria being de-masted and then loaded with â??all manner of flocksâ? and enough provision for 344 days. Then send everyone below, make the deck water tight, and leave a small hole in the deck for air. Do not allow fire on the boats, and the have the wind blow against them for 344 days.

If you read in the history on naval warfare, you will see that de-masting a sailing ship is tantamount to destroying it. De-masted ships had to be repaired to restore power, sunk, abandoned, or if close to land sometimes towed back to land in favorable weather. They never continued on their voyage as barges, because such an attempt would be fruitless. De-masted ships would be eventually wrecked against the shoreline, or swamped, or rolled over, and sunk by high seas.

It appears as if the only explanation to be found here for th efantastical story of the Jaredites sea journey is a series of miracles. If that is your best response, then why do you even pretend to discuss science, or falsifiability?

To claim both the natural and the supernatural in your belief system is to claim both science and magic. It reflects magical thinking or "doublethink". By now you should know better than to invoke â??miracles" in any discussion of falsifiability.

Why not simply admit that none of your claims that require miracles are falsifiable and leave it at that? But when you do, please do not talk about your unfounded beliefs and superstitions as being consistent with science. They are not, period.

.

[DrW]

Yes I think we are.

Well.. if he does not believe in any of those things, then there is NO way to show that any of the LDS or any Religious claims are true. You have to have FAITH. I would say this discussion is at a dead-end with him then. There is not much we can PROVE that he cannot DISPROVE since neither of us has full knowledge of the Laws of Nature (no matter what he claims he knows). If he says he knows all about the Laws of Nature then he is deceiving hisself. Every scientist that I know (and I have known quite a number) say they do not know everything and are always looking to learn more about the Laws. They have an open mind. Even the Athiest ones that I have known say they do not know it all.

I do not recall stating that I knew everything about science or that science knows everything about nature. So please do not claim that I have made either statement.

What I will say is that we know enough about science and nature to set the probability that the Book of Ether ocean voyage happened, as described, to be so vanishingy small as to be not worth further consideration. That is; it was not, and is not, possible.

One need consider nothing further than the chances of setting eight large pieces of wood afloat on any ocean from the eastern hemisphere and having them all show up at the same place at the same time on an ocean shore in the western hemisphere.

If you wish to make it possible, then you need to invoke miracles (magic). This thread is about falsifiability and claimed historical miracles are not falsifiable.

[Balzer]

To claim both the natural and the supernatural in your belief system is to claim both science and magic. It reflects magical thinking or "doublethink". By now you should know better than to invoke â??miracles" in any discussion of falsifiability.

Why not simply admit that none of your claims that require miracles are falsifiable and leave it at that? But when you do, please do not talk about your unfounded beliefs and superstitions as being consistent with science. They are not, period.

.

To claim both the natural and supernatural in my belief system is not "magical thinking" or "doublethink" in as much as one cannot coexist with the other. To the contrary, in my view, it is absolutely necessary to claim both when discussing a lot of the historical events alleged in the Bible or the BoM, and when discussing virtually anything having to do with our existence and origins. In other words, in my humble opinion, at some point in every scientific discussion, you simply have to give it up for God.

I never denied the fact that miracles are not falsifiable, and I'm happy to leave it at that. However, my beliefs (read: superstitions) are no more "unfounded" than your disbeliefs. Again, although I found your first post to be very informative and compelling, I cannot leave out the possibility of miracles.

Respectfully,

Balzer