Which LDS Truth Claims are Falsifiable?

[Jason]

Hello pahoran, The truth claim would be that those LDS who pay what the church defines as tithing are actually keeping the law of tithing. From another discussion on the board it appears to me that a lot of LDS believe they are keeping the law of tithing. They must have gotten that idea from somewhere.

But we don't believe we're keeping the Mosaic law of tithing as it was kept in Moses' day, so saying we're not practicing it exactly as it was practiced in Moses' day isn't telling us anything we don't already know.

It's like saying that America's current law against murder isn't really a law against murder because it doesn't exactly match the English Common Law that it was originally derived from.

If you would like a reference to a bit of institutionalized Mormon magical thinking, please consider Boyd K. Packer's "some truths are not helpful", and "the mantle supersedes the intellect." statements.

There is a place and time in which any truth may not be helpful, and the prophet can indeed speak on matters that he would have no authority to speak on without his calling.

[Pahoran]

When it comes to some aspects of daily life and most aspects of religion, then magical thinking abounds in the TBM worldview.

As you know -- and have entirely failed to address -- you are using "magical thinking" as a meaningless pejorative, for no other purpose than to poison the well against your opponents.

According to Richard Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling, Joseph Smith Jr. was a magical thinker. Bushman uses this terminology and cites ample evidence in his book to back this claim. He even states that such magical thinking was probably necessary to prepare the way for the restored gospel. I agree with Bushman on that point.

CFR, please. I for one would prefer to satisfy myself that Bushman uses the term, if he uses it, in a way that meaningfully resembles your use thereof as a polemical epithet.

If you would like a reference to a bit of institutionalized Mormon magical thinking, please consider Boyd K. Packer's "some truths are not helpful", and "the mantle supersedes the intellect." statements.

And please don't try to "interpret" these statements for my benefit. BKP made them. He meant them. And their meaning is self evident.

Indeed it is. Particularly when they are correctly quoted instead of manipulatively misquoted.

It is self-evident that the first statement simply means that teaching must be organised. The truths of mathematics, for example, are not useful in the teaching of Shakespeare.

It is self-evident that the second refers to the primacy of revealed truth over speculation and theory.

It is further self-evident that these are two statements, not one, and to attempt to concatenate them into a single statement would be egregiously dishonest.

They constitute a 10 word magical thinking manifesto.

Like that, for example.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

As you know -- and have entirely failed to address -- you are using "magical thinking" as a meaningless pejorative, for no other purpose than to poison the well against your opponents.

Pahoran,

I have a serious question for you. On the CSI thread, I suggested analyzing the Moroni visitation story for plausibility in the same way that a criminologist would analyze any other story. You responded,

The notion that any plausibly divine being would be subject to these kinds of limitations is actually so risible that I had to check the date on the OP just to make sure it wasn't an April Fool thread being recycled.

Regards,

Pahoran

Your thinking reminds me of a scene from The Secret Garden.

Mary: ln lndia when it rained, my ayah would tell me stories. ln one of the stories there was a god who reminds me of youâ?¦

Colin: Was he different from other people?

Mary: Only on the inside. When you looked down his throat you could see the universe.

Colin: The universe couldn't fit down anybody's throat.

Mary: Down his it could.

Colin: How? He'd have to be bigger than the whole universe to fit it down his throat. You said he looked like everybody else on the outside.

Mary: That's right. lt's inside that he was different.

Colin: lt doesn't make sense.

Mary: lt doesn't have to make sense, it's the idea of it.

Colin: lt's so stupid.

Mary: No, it's not. lt's magic.

Thinking that a â??plausibly divineâ? being is exempt from common-sense rules (e.g. being able to hover in a small room when the physical reality is that the ceiling just isnâ??t high enough to do so) is an example of magical thinking in the descriptive, non-pejorative sense; objects defying the law of gravity and not being subject to physical barriers is the stuff magic shows are made of.

In the Secret Garden, Mary didnâ??t hesitate to call it magic. You are the one who believes that â??plausibly divine beingsâ? are obviously not subject to â??these kind of limitationsâ?. If you donâ??t want this way of thinking to be called "magical thinkingâ?, what should we call it?

[sleepyhead]

But we don't believe we're keeping the Mosaic law of tithing as it was kept in Moses' day, so saying we're not practicing it exactly as it was practiced in Moses' day isn't telling us anything we don't already know.

Hello Jason,

The name of this thread is "Which LDS Truth Claims are Falsifiable?" We apparently agree that LDS who pay the LDS version of the law of tithing are not keeping the law of tithing as defined by Moses. Now the question is: is the claim that those who keep the LDS version of the law of tithing, in actuality observing the law of tithing as outlined through Moses, a truth claim made by the LDS church or not. I've been out of the church for over 30 years so I'm going to pm consig... to respond since he recently taught a class on tithing.

[Jason]

Hello Jason,

The name of this thread is "Which LDS Truth Claims are Falsifiable?" We apparently agree that LDS who pay the LDS version of the law of tithing are not keeping the law of tithing as defined by Moses. Now the question is: is the claim that those who keep the LDS version of the law of tithing, in actuality observing the law of tithing as outlined through Moses, a truth claim made by the LDS church or not. I've been out of the church for over 30 years so I'm going to pm consig... to respond since he recently taught a class on tithing.

The answer is "NO", we aren't claiming to obey the Mosaic law of tithing. We claim to be obeying a law of tithing derived from the same eternal principles as the Mosaic law, but not the Mosaic law itself.

So, our response to your criticism of "you're not keeping the Mosaic law of tithing," is "Duh."

[Nofear]

Thinking that a â??plausibly divineâ? being is exempt from common-sense rules (e.g. being able to hover in a small room when the physical reality is that the ceiling just isnâ??t high enough to do so) â?¦

Perhaps it's just me, but the room seems tall enough if one stands near the center: http://www.hillcumorah.org/SmithLog.aspx. Admittedly, I haven't bothered reading the whole thread. Maybe you actually established the dimensions already instead of assuming them.

[Jason]

I have a serious question for you. On the CSI thread, I suggested analyzing the Moroni visitation story for plausibility in the same way that a criminologist would analyze any other story.

That was really a serious question?

[Analytics]

Perhaps it's just me, but the room seems tall enough if one stands near the center: http://www.hillcumorah.org/SmithLog.aspx. Admittedly, I haven't bothered reading the whole thread. Maybe you actually established the dimensions already instead of assuming them.

Maybe the story is perfectly plausible given the dimensions of the room. But I do wonder how the room was actually furnished and how many people were there. Being empty other than two small beds deeply tucked against the lowest walls seems unlikely. But I really donâ??t know.

That was really a serious question?

The actual point was that whether or not Moroni would actually fit is irrelevant because Mormonismâ??s truth claims arenâ??t subject to the same type of scrutiny we give things in the real world. As Pahoran said, â??plausibly divineâ? beings are exempt from common-sense rules.

[ttribe]

The actual point was that whether or not Moroni would actually fit is irrelevant because Mormonismâ??s truth claims arenâ??t subject to the same type of scrutiny we give things in the real world. As Pahoran said, â??plausibly divineâ? beings are exempt from common-sense rules.

Seems kind of silly since you don't believe there's any such thing/person/being as "Moroni" or "angels". Perhaps the correct methodology would be to take a statistically valid sample of angels, measure their height, and see if the average "angel" would fit in Joseph Smith's boyhood bedroom. Of course, if you actually found angels, it would blow your entire worldview out of the water. I await your detailed paper of your analysis.

[Jason]

A proper methodology to determine if Moroni could plausibly fit into Joseph Smith's room would require accurate knowledge of the properties and abilities of angels. Until you can come up with a comprehensive account of those abilties and properties, it seems premature to start measuring the room.

[Nofear]

A proper methodology to determine if Moroni could plausibly fit into Joseph Smith's room would require accurate knowledge of the properties and abilities of angels. Until you can come up with a comprehensive account of those abilties and properties, it seems premature to start measuring the room.

Oh, we can probably assume that angels are the dimensions of a typical mortal. We might assume they can pass through walls, but Joseph had no description of him being phased into the ceiling or any such thing. But, it would still be an "unfalsifiable" scenario we could claim that Joseph was in a "vision". Not that we'd have to resort to such. It seems quite plausible a standard male body could easily stand or hover in the bedroom (and I don't think the Smiths would have put the bed right in the middle of the walkway - where one would walk without having to stoop over). In short, Analytics proposed falsifiable scenario ends up being rather silly.

[Tchild2]

A proper methodology to determine if Moroni could plausibly fit into Joseph Smith's room would require accurate knowledge of the properties and abilities of angels. Until you can come up with a comprehensive account of those abilties and properties, it seems premature to start measuring the room.

That is a good point. Without knowing the properties of angels, resurrected beings and their capabilities, such tests would be inconclusive. How do we know that Resurrected beings cannot project their likeness from afar as if they were present?

Are there are any resurrected being experts?

[Saint Sinner]

As to your claim that I believe myself to be uniquely qualified; I am certainly not uniquely qualified, and do not claim to be.

There are millions of ex-Mormons and inactive Mormons out there who are highly qualified to point out the irrationality in the TBM worldview because, like me, they been there - done that.

As for my living a fantasy, please remember who relys on facts in this discission and who relies on faith.

I will try respond to the other comments when I have more time. Right now I am working to an unexpected deadline for a work product.

Have a good evening.

I will take your side in this. Far too often to I see LDS members fall prey to the ad hominem arguments. It is no longer about what you feel. It is about rationality and reality.

The fantasy is the blind pulled over the eyes of many members of the LDS church.

Saint Sinner

[Saint Sinner]

A proper methodology to determine if Moroni could plausibly fit into Joseph Smith's room would require accurate knowledge of the properties and abilities of angels. Until you can come up with a comprehensive account of those abilties and properties, it seems premature to start measuring the room.

Moroni or Nephi? Which account would you prefer?

Stories have changed so much with JS.

When being critical of the First Vision(s) accounts...it is obvious to understand that it is not one big developmental account. JS gave many different accounts that had nothing to do with each other.

But to respond to your actual post...I'm curious as to what your thoughts are in response to your own questions.

Saint Sinner

[Jason]

Oh, we can probably assume that angels are the dimensions of a typical mortal.

Can we?

[Jason]

Moroni or Nephi? Which account would you prefer?

Stories have changed so much with JS.

When being critical of the First Vision(s) accounts...it is obvious to understand that it is not one big developmental account. JS gave many different accounts that had nothing to do with each other.

But to respond to your actual post...I'm curious as to what your thoughts are in response to your own questions.

Saint Sinner

Did I ask questions in that post? I was pointing out a lack of information about the properties of resurrected beings and cautioning against making assumptions because of it.

How is it obvious that Joseph Smith's (I assume that's who you mean by "JS") different accounts had nothing to do with each other?

Did Joseph claim Nephi appeared to him, or was he reported by some second hand source to have claimed so? Can this second source be verified? Can we even be sure it is referring to the appearance of Moroni and not some other visitation?

[consiglieri]

Hello Jason,

The name of this thread is "Which LDS Truth Claims are Falsifiable?" We apparently agree that LDS who pay the LDS version of the law of tithing are not keeping the law of tithing as defined by Moses. Now the question is: is the claim that those who keep the LDS version of the law of tithing, in actuality observing the law of tithing as outlined through Moses, a truth claim made by the LDS church or not. I've been out of the church for over 30 years so I'm going to pm consig... to respond since he recently taught a class on tithing.

You rang, Mr. Adams?

I am not sure I have anything substantive to add here, but I did teach the law of tithing, and I showed-off by just quoting scriptures from the Old Testament quickly so I could move onto the main part of the lesson, which was talking about the development of the law of tithing in the LDS Church, and how when it says "tithing" in the D&C, it is not talking about the way we do it today.

As to Moses, I think the only thing I mentioned was that it was practiced under the law of Moses, and prior to that by Abraham to Melchizedek when giving a tenth of the spoils he won off King Chedarlaomer (the Big Cheese).

As to Moses, I think the only thing I mentioned was that the people were to give 1/10th of their increase to the Levites, who had no land apportioned to them but served full-time at the temple, and that 1/10th of the Levites portion was then given to the priests of Aaron.

All the Best, everybody, and have a great weekend!

--Consiglieri

[Hermes]

I will take your side in this. Far too often to I see LDS members fall prey to the ad hominem arguments. It is no longer about what you feel. It is about rationality and reality.

The fantasy is the blind pulled over the eyes of many members of the LDS church.

Saint Sinner

you speak of people falling prey to ad hominem arguments while perpetuating one yourself. take 2 days off. review the board guidelines. thanks~hermes

[LifeOnaPlate]

JS gave many different accounts that had nothing to do with each other.

Flatly false. I've read each account and your assertion is either hyperbolic (and irresponsible) or simply unsustainable by the analysis of the actual recorded words.

[sleepyhead]

Flatly false. I've read each account and your assertion is either hyperbolic (and irresponsible) or simply unsustainable by the analysis of the actual recorded words.

Hello lifeonaplate,

I would be interested in reading the various versions of the 1st vision provided that they are unedited. Where would one find them.

[sleepyhead]

You rang, Mr. Adams?

I am not sure I have anything substantive to add here, but I did teach the law of tithing, and I showed-off by just quoting scriptures from the Old Testament quickly so I could move onto the main part of the lesson, which was talking about the development of the law of tithing in the LDS Church, and how when it says "tithing" in the D&C, it is not talking about the way we do it today.

As to Moses, I think the only thing I mentioned was that it was practiced under the law of Moses, and prior to that by Abraham to Melchizedek when giving a tenth of the spoils he won off King Chedarlaomer (the Big Cheese).

As to Moses, I think the only thing I mentioned was that the people were to give 1/10th of their increase to the Levites, who had no land apportioned to them but served full-time at the temple, and that 1/10th of the Levites portion was then given to the priests of Aaron.

All the Best, everybody, and have a great weekend!

--Consiglieri

Thanks consiglieri,

Actually I'm more interested in what the priesthood manual instructed you to teach rather than what you actually taught. Did the pm make it clear that tithing was different as given through Moses.

[Nyal]

Flatly false. I've read each account and your assertion is either hyperbolic (and irresponsible) or simply unsustainable by the analysis of the actual recorded words.

You find no problems with the following differences?

Changing First Vision Accounts: Conclusion

The evidence available from early sources, including Joseph Smith and his family establish a number of important facts.

First, Joseph did not relate his story consistently, but changed key elements over the years. He changed:

The date / his age - from 1823 (age 16), to 1821 (age 15), to 1820 (age 14)

The reason or motive for seeking divine help - from no motive (a spirit appears with the news of gold plates), Bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists.

Who appears to him - a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son.

Second, common elements from early accounts raise questions about what appears to be a gradual evolution of Joseph Smith's first vision story. Did Joseph begin to include a "Christian experience" in the telling of his story because Bauder noticed it was lacking? The earliest accounts given to Chase and Harris do not include this. There is a noticeable shift in the context of finding the gold plates, from 17 year-old money-digger to 14 year-old spiritual seeker. Is this an attempt to put his story into a more socially acceptable context? It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that as time went on, Joseph omitted uncomfortable but true parts of his history and replaced them with fictitious elements in order to make his story more socially acceptable and spiritually compelling.

- Joel B. Groat

[consiglieri]

Thanks consiglieri,

Actually I'm more interested in what the priesthood manual instructed you to teach rather than what you actually taught. Did the pm make it clear that tithing was different as given through Moses.

It was actually the Gospel Doctrine Sunday school manual, but I will say that usually the Church manuals seem committed to the proposition that all past prophets have strictly followed current Mormon practices and wholeheartedly embraced current Mormon doctrine . . . so I doubt it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Cold Steel]

The actual point was that whether or not Moroni would actually fit is irrelevant because Mormonismâ??s truth claims arenâ??t subject to the same type of scrutiny we give things in the real world. As Pahoran said, â??plausibly divineâ? beings are exempt from common-sense rules.

First, he would have fit. The angel's feet did not touch the floor, which means he could have been standing one inch off the floor to a foot or more. But as you said, that's not the point.

The point is your assertion that Joseph Smith's claims aren't subject to the same type of scrutiny that we give things in the "real world."

So what are you talking about? Are you saying that this is true for all prophets and all religionsâ??that we accept things without question? Or do you think Joseph Smith's case is unique?

Just what are common sense rules we apply to real world that we're not applying to Moroni, anyhoo? I think Joseph Smith's description of Moroni was outstanding. Like other prophets, he testified and bore witness to what he saw. With that in mind, we now have to know which common sense rules are being withheld.

[Pahoran]

You find no problems with the following differences?

Changing First Vision Accounts: Conclusion

The evidence available from early sources, including Joseph Smith and his family establish a number of important facts.

First, Joseph did not relate his story consistently, but changed key elements over the years. He changed:

The date / his age - from 1823 (age 16), to 1821 (age 15), to 1820 (age 14)

The reason or motive for seeking divine help - from no motive (a spirit appears with the news of gold plates), Bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists.

Who appears to him - a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son.

Second, common elements from early accounts raise questions about what appears to be a gradual evolution of Joseph Smith's first vision story. Did Joseph begin to include a "Christian experience" in the telling of his story because Bauder noticed it was lacking? The earliest accounts given to Chase and Harris do not include this. There is a noticeable shift in the context of finding the gold plates, from 17 year-old money-digger to 14 year-old spiritual seeker. Is this an attempt to put his story into a more socially acceptable context? It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that as time went on, Joseph omitted uncomfortable but true parts of his history and replaced them with fictitious elements in order to make his story more socially acceptable and spiritually compelling.

- Joel B. Groat

How's Joel at doing arithmetic? Joseph was not 16 in 1823.

How's Joel at telling the difference between the First Vision and Moroni's visit? Any child in my Primary class can tell you they are not the same, but Joel conflates them. Is this deliberate?

How's Joel at telling the difference between primary and secondary accounts? He is clearly relying more upon the latter than the former.

And how are you at spotting deliberate obfuscation when you see it? Joel O'Groats is an expert at it.

Regards,

Pahoran