The Other Side Of The Debate...

[LeSellers]

Sorry about the duped. Who do I have to bribe to get "edit" privileges for my own posts?

There's no bribery required. Just post 25 messages.

I suggest "A Three Word Story" in the Social Hall.

Lehi

[aleph]

Pahoran,

my point is that the OP suggest that the incredible number of converts in Mongolia (though said incredible number does not exist) is offered as an assertion of the power of the BOM and message to convert non-Christians.

[altersteve]

Pahoran,

my point is that the OP suggest that the incredible number of converts in Mongolia (though said incredible number does not exist) is offered as an assertion of the power of the BOM and message to convert non-Christians.

It is. But it was never claimed to prove anything. The Church's membership is rising because the Book of Mormon is true, not the other way around.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

my point is that the OP suggest that the incredible number of converts in Mongolia (though said incredible number does not exist) is offered as an assertion of the power of the BOM and message to convert non-Christians.

Actually the OP (which stands for Opening Post or Original Post, the first post on the first page of the thread) says nothing of the sort. Nor does Robert Smith, as quoted by you (even less in the entire context of his post #199) make such an argument. All he is saying is: Based upon the fact that people without previous exposure to the Church are converted every year, the claim that "Childhood indoctrination and/or relative ignorance of the Bible are the only ways in which people enter into either Christianity or Mormonism" is manifestly false.

And he's right; it is.

Incidentally, given that the Church in Mongolia came from a very recent standing start, the numbers are impressive, even if the interpretation of the numbers is incorrect. Actually your obsession with those numbers, taken together with your attempt to play them down as much as possible and introduce irrelevant competing examples, shows that it is in fact you who is trying to make an argument from numbers. Attempting to foist it upon us, or any of us, is a most transparent straw man, and I advise you to abandon it, if for nothing more than the sake of your own credibility.

Regards,

Pahoran

[aleph]

I am a total newb to this forum. I have no inherent credibility nor do I desire to acquire any. I took umbrage with a totally invented number (first invented by an apostle and then "made better" by an apologist) that was thrown out after a CFR by Mr. Smith, and assert that he is inferring something by said miraculous statistic..... sure. I am merely trying to show that asserting the truth or power of anything by showing its ability to increase membership numbers is foolish especially when you are not absolutely dominating the heap.

Or better, trying to show: that as 1 in 5 Mongolians is a member, and as said Mongolians come from a non-Christian background, this means that the message of the LDS church and or Book of Mormon has the power to convince non-Christians to the truthfulness of said message (in miraculous droves). If such inference was not implied by such a figure then why include said number? Was the purpose of the statistic not to prove/evidence that something special in the message converts non Christian Mongolians en masse?

Two seconds of google time by Mr. Smith would have validated his claim, and yet he includes a blatantly false assertion as evidence, inclusion as proof of the validity of his claim.

Mr. Smith even goes so far as to chide Shelama (I think I am keeping the names straight) on the weakness of his logic, and calls for references....

I would like to see actual academic research articles (or books) which show these or like propositions to be true. I have asked for citations before and you should by now have provided some. The books and articles I have examined by those who make claims supporting any of your propositions are riddled with logical and factual errors (I have written extensively on this issue for many years). I can think of hundreds of factual and logical reasons why your claim that the Bible is “purely manmade in all respects” in proposition #4 is false. The same is true by extension to the Mormon Canon.

And then includes this pineapple:

Your proposition #3 is manifestly untrue, and Mormon missionaries have great success far away from societies which have previously been indoctrinated in biblical beliefs, e.g., Mongolia is a prime example (1/5 of the population of the capital, Ulan Bator, is now Mormon).

???

To which I assert the inclusion of said statistic is to prove the power or truthfulness of the message in creating converts from non Christians, and you want to say that my logic is faulty.

This is a fun place.

Shall we ask the author? Mr. Smith, again what was your intent in including the number?

And by OP I meant the original poster whom I was referencing. You understood it (that I meant Mr. Smith), I understood it, yet I failed to meet the boards norms in acronyms. Mea culpa.

On an aside, how come this forum lacks a preview button?

[Pahoran]

I am a total newb to this forum. I have no inherent credibility nor do I desire to acquire any. I took umbrage with a totally invented number (first invented by an apostle and then "made better" by an apologist)

First rule of dialogue: you extend others, including your ideological opponents, the courtesy of presuming that they are posting in good faith. There is no "totally invented number" in view. There is an honest mistake by one party, unintentionally compounded by another. This can be demonstrated by the fact that there has been no attempt to falsify the raw numbers upon which the mistaken calculations were based.

Unless you have actual evidence of actual fabrication, I suggest you (1) retract your reckless false accusation forthwith, and (2) see that you do not repeat your error.

that was thrown out after a CFR by Mr. Smith, and assert that he is inferring something by said miraculous statistic..... sure. I am merely trying to show that asserting the truth or power of anything by showing its ability to increase membership numbers is foolish especially when you are not absolutely dominating the heap.

Or better, trying to show: that as 1 in 5 Mongolians is a member, and as said Mongolians come from a non-Christian background, this means that the message of the LDS church and or Book of Mormon has the power to convince non-Christians to the truthfulness of said message (in miraculous droves). If such inference was not implied by such a figure then why include said number? Was the purpose of the statistic not to prove/evidence that something special in the message converts non Christian Mongolians en masse?

The purpose is what Robert explicitly said it was: to demonstrate that the previously referenced Proposition #3 was false. Actually the unintentional error only served to strengthen the emotional impact of the argument; logically, a single counterexample is all it takes to falsify such an absolute assertion. Your speculation about the "purpose," while ignoring Robert's own very unequivocal and explicit statements in that connection, shows at best an eagerness to substitute your own assumptions for the evidence before you.

Two seconds of google time by Mr. Smith would have validated his claim, and yet he includes a blatantly false assertion as evidence, inclusion as proof of the validity of his claim.

The only "blatantly false assertion" in view is your own. Robert made an honest mistake in an on-the-spot calculation. You will be pleased to acknowledge and accept that fact.

To which I assert the inclusion of said statistic is to prove the power or truthfulness of the message in creating converts from non Christians, and you want to say that my logic is faulty.

Because your assertion proceeds from no evidence and is based upon no facts. Robert asserted that he included said statistic to show that the ridiculous claim that "Childhood indoctrination and/or relative ignorance of the Bible are the only ways in which people enter into either Christianity or Mormonism" is manifestly false.

And, since he is the absolute expert and sole world authority on what his own intentions are and were, it follows that absolutely everyone who is discussing this question in good faith, without exception, understands and accepts that that is why he included it.

Just so you know.

Shall we ask the author? Mr. Smith, again what was your intent in including the number?

Actually he already told us that. It is rude to badger someone when a question has already been answered.

And by OP I meant the original poster whom I was referencing. You understood it (that I meant Mr. Smith), I understood it, yet I failed to meet the boards norms in acronyms. Mea culpa.

On an aside, how come this forum lacks a preview button?

Below the edit window, next to the "Post" button, there is a "More Reply Options" button.

Regards,

Pahoran

[aleph]

Pahoran,

how was the number not just invented off the cuff? The apostle said 1 in 10, Mr. Smith "extrapolates" to 1 in 5 or just plain forgets. Either way, the number is blatantly false as it has no basis in reality.

I retract nothing in the assertion that the number was fabricated, as it was. 20 seconds of research at the Church's own website, and Wiki combined with a calculator provide the actual number, either for the Apostle in question or for Mr. Smith. I offered the actual numbers as well as those weighted for geographical location of members, and weighted for activity rates (which for Mongolia are available on the cumorah.com website).

Fabrication on the part of said Apostle and Mr. Smith? Yes.

Intentionally deceiving? No.

There is a difference.

But failing to fact check yourself after calling some one's argument weak, and calling for a reference?.... seriously?

I have afforded Mr. Smith the opportunity twice to clarify his intent. He as of yet has failed to do so. Is your offering to interpret his intent any different than mine?

Yes, he was responding to a question that is slightly different than my assertion, but the inclusion of such a fantastic number, without the implication the said number provides evidence of veracity of the message, as I have asserted...... strains credulity.

Especially in the light of knowing that the Church, its members and apologists in the past have oft used claims of the Church's phenomenal growth as evidence of its veracity. It is inferred by an appeal to such an extraordinary number as "1 in 5". That is why the number was included, to strengthen the claim that missionaries and hence the message have great success in Mongolia. That the message is true is implied. That the truthfulness/power of the message being the root of the success is also implied. As such it was also offered as evidence eg proof.

Mr. Smith, please correct me.

[selek1]

Pahoran,

how was the number not just invented off the cuff? The apostle said 1 in 10, Mr. Smith "extrapolates" to 1 in 5 or just plain forgets.

Either way, the number is blatantly false as it has no basis in reality.

It was not invented "off the cuff". As stated by Brother Smith, it was in error.

Your choice of words insinuates (nay, deliberately accuses) an intent to deceive, which Smith's admission of error proves false.

Your offensive insistence on imputing bad faith to a poster who has already acknowledged the error is more revealing than the error itself.

But failing to fact check yourself after calling some one's argument weak, and calling for a reference?.... seriously?

I have afforded Mr. Smith the opportunity twice to clarify his intent. He as of yet has failed to do so.

In your opinion. I think that post 207 more than adequately addresses the admission of error.

That you continue to flog the matter and refuse to acknowledge Smith's admission shows that you are either ignorant of what was actually said or are pursuing an agenda.

My money is on the latter.

Especially in the light of knowing that the Church, its members and apologists in the past have oft used claims of the Church's phenomenal growth as evidence of its veracity.

Considering that you claim to be "a total newb", you profess to be 1) remarkably well versed on what "apologists have done", and 2) gifted with a remarkable talent to mind-read the motives of people you've never met.

Neither advances the credibility of your claims.

[aleph]

Selek,

Are you not guilty of the same offense you accuse me of? Reading more into my statement than is there? I conceded that no deception was intended. You can not concede that fabrication occurred. Meh. I corrected the numbers and assert that using such numbers to prove anything miraculous is folly. And miraculous is implied by "1 in 5." You will not concede that..... oh well.

In your opinion I am wrong in assetring an inference of proof of veracity. Fine opinions are merely that, they are not facts. They are conclusions drawn by the best available evidence but again reflect truthfulness only as perceived by the owner of the opinion.

Now you impart me with an agenda. You too are a mind reader. Would you like a star?

Newb to this board does not infer newb to the workings, writings, and machinations of apologists and critics.

Credibility. You do not know me from Adam. I do not know you from Adam. I was still astute enough to note that 1 in 5 is more like 1 in 255. That in and of itself is credible.

[mfbukowski]

Newb to this board does not infer newb to the workings, writings, and machinations of apologists and critics.

Great start. A newbie managing to insult Pahoran- good luck on that course of action, you might as well just go kick a dragon for fun- Selek- dragon number 2- and actually having the timerity to punch the eminent Robert Smith in the nose over a misquote.

Great start.

All that and you don't know the difference between "infer" and "imply".

Not a good sign.

[Robert F. Smith]

Great start. A newbie managing to insult Pahoran- good luck on that course of action, you might as well just go kick a dragon for fun- Selek- dragon number 2- and actually having the timerity to punch the eminent Robert Smith in the nose over a misquote.

Great start.

All that and you don't know the difference between "infer" and "imply".

Not a good sign.

No, not a good sign when sock-puppets hurl insults ad nauseam (making claims for example that "fabrication" is not the same as "intentionally deceiving," or that the figures in question are really intended to "imply" something other than suggested, etc.). That, and endlessly talking about talking about this or that irrelevant non sequitur seems pointless.

We would be far better served if the debate focused on substantive issues: such as the actual content and nature of the scholarly debate carried on in academe by higher and lower critics.

[aleph]

Robert implies. I infer. See I know the difference. Knowing the difference and always using grammar correctly, not so much. But then which of us does? This is not a thesis paper but merely an internet forum. When there is something of actual consequence to be said I will spend more time proof reading.

I am no ones sock puppet, just a random passer-by who read a statistic and thought "no way." "Not when the church only manages 2/10 of 1 percent worldwide." And guess what. I was right, and called some one on it.

So I've stirred up a hornet's nest, or kicked a dragon in the nose. This doesn't even qualify as a tempest in a tea pot. I've no reputation to maintain and nothing to prove.

fab·ri·cate(fbr-kt)

tr.v. fab·ri·cat·ed, fab·ri·cat·ing, fab·ri·cates

1.

To make; create.

2.

To construct by combining or assembling diverse, typically standardized parts:

fabricate small boats.

3.

To concoct in order to deceive:

fabricated an excuse.

I was using the first definition, now you are inferring that I implied otherwise. Better put down the stones.

Scared of Pahoran, and Selek..... nah. After all this is just the internet.

Am I supposed to feel inferior to name dropping armchair academics whose best effort is grammar nit picking, and indirect ad homenin attacks, while defending their colleague, who I corrected after he throws out a statistic that is 2 orders of magnitude off, misquoting yet a figure that was just plain wrong. 2 orders of magnitude is the type of error that kills people in engineering fields.

If calling someone to provide a reference after telling them their argument is weak, and then dropping that type of figure without fact checking yourself is what passes for rigour around here (and what is allowed to the self affirmed heavy hitters), then by swapping around imply and infer, I am in esteemed company

I agree with Robert that this is a "irrelevant non sequitur" and mostly "pointless", but you all keep playing. So why shouldn't I?

[Hestia]

Aleph is out of the thread for consistent misrepresentation of others' position....and if we can't get back to the intent of the OP the whole thread will be closed. Please be civil and not make accusations about a person's intentions.

[Prufrocks]

The quote that Mr. Smith cites says:

3. Childhood indoctrination and/or relative ignorance of the Bible are the only ways in which people enter into either Christianity or Mormonism.

I take this to include (quite obviously) an "either/or". EITHER Childhood indoctrination OR relative ignorance of the Bible are the only ways in which people enter into either Christianity or Mormonism.

The childhood indoctrination is only one of two totally separate ways. Comments dismissing or denouncing the "childhood indoctrination part" seem to be either missing or ignoring something important.

Regarding Mr. Smith's example of Mongolia, I may be wrong but I'm guessing that not only 'relative ignorance' but truly profound ignorance of the Bible is endemic there. As it is in much of the developing world where Christian missionaries seem to be enjoying much of their successes of late. If the only thing that people think they know and understand about the Bible, including the Hebrew scriptures, is what they learn from Christian translations and Christian interpretations from Christian missionaries, is it possible to ascribe to them significant ignorance of the Bible? Or even profound ignorance.

Somehow I wonder if the specific focus of Smith's anonymous communicant is a true, informed, critical study and understanding of the Bible? While I am sure there are many examples of converts to Christianity, including to Mormonism, by people who do have such scholarly, critical knowledge of the Bible at the time of their conversion, and who convert because or in spite of that knowledge, I can't think of any off hand. Others here might provide the examples which prove our misguided, anonymous communicant to be wrong.

[Deborah]

Regarding Mr. Smith's example of Mongolia, I may be wrong but I'm guessing that not only 'relative ignorance' but truly profound ignorance of the Bible is endemic there. As it is in much of the developing world where Christian missionaries seem to be enjoying much of their successes of late.

As has been previously stated, so what? True conversion is based on the spirit not on a profound knowledge of the scriptures. I personally had read the Bible quite a bit before becoming LDS and because I didn't accept the general interpretation of many things found the church filling in the gaps. However, my conversion wasn't based on that but on a very strong spiritual experience I had.

As to children who are "indoctrinated" even they at some point must be converted by the spirit. We hear many stories of missionaries going through the motions because of family tradition and expectations but of truly being converted in the mission field after much struggling, study and prayer.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The quote that Mr. Smith cites says:

I take this to include (quite obviously) an "either/or". EITHER Childhood indoctrination OR relative ignorance of the Bible are the only ways in which people enter into either Christianity or Mormonism.

The childhood indoctrination is only one of two totally separate ways. Comments dismissing or denouncing the "childhood indoctrination part" seem to be either missing or ignoring something important.

Regarding Mr. Smith's example of Mongolia, I may be wrong but I'm guessing that not only 'relative ignorance' but truly profound ignorance of the Bible is endemic there. As it is in much of the developing world where Christian missionaries seem to be enjoying much of their successes of late. If the only thing that people think they know and understand about the Bible, including the Hebrew scriptures, is what they learn from Christian translations and Christian interpretations from Christian missionaries, is it possible to ascribe to them significant ignorance of the Bible? Or even profound ignorance.

Somehow I wonder if the specific focus of Smith's anonymous communicant is a true, informed, critical study and understanding of the Bible? While I am sure there are many examples of converts to Christianity, including to Mormonism, by people who do have such scholarly, critical knowledge of the Bible at the time of their conversion, and who convert because or in spite of that knowledge, I can't think of any off hand. Others here might provide the examples which prove our misguided, anonymous communicant to be wrong.

Creating sock puppets is a board violation.

[mfbukowski]

Somehow I wonder if the specific focus of Smith's anonymous communicant is a true, informed, critical study and understanding of the Bible? While I am sure there are many examples of converts to Christianity, including to Mormonism, by people who do have such scholarly, critical knowledge of the Bible at the time of their conversion, and who convert because or in spite of that knowledge, I can't think of any off hand. Others here might provide the examples which prove our misguided, anonymous communicant to be wrong.

I really don't know why "critical study" of the bible is relevant when there are many who never believed in the bible at all.

The only reason anyone would become a biblical scholar is because they had some interest in its veracity- surely it is interesting literature, but devote one's life soley to some cultural myths because some people believe them to be literally true is a strange thing to do with one's life.

To me, the more relevant question is does anyone join the church who did not believe in the bible at all- and then through a testimony experience, was converted to the Book of Mormon, and then by implication, to the Bible?

I raised my hand earlier on that one. I am an example of that happening.

I think the reason people get into Bible study in the first place is they are taught that it is literally true, have problems with that, and then try to work their way through the cognitive dissonance and perhaps think that studying and teaching about the Bible would be a good career path, and then through further study, fidn out that the Bible should not be taken literally, and then they throw the baby out with the bathwater and become non-believers.

In other words, the reason they become biblical scholars in the first place is that they have doubts because of an early misunderstanding of Biblical literalism, and then find that they were right to have doubts about literalism, and they end up throwing out the bible instead of the literalism.

I think that is the reason many biblical scholars are indeed non-believers.

But the entire problem, in my opinion is literalism, which is the same as scientism which pervades our culture. I have taught my kids from the beginning that we should not take scripture literally in all cases- some perhaps, and they have grown into reasoning adults who are believers and have a good intellectual AND testimony-based understanding of these matters.

And incidentally, I am not against taking the bible literally if one wants to, but I acknowledge that literalism is just one perspective on an issue which has many many possible perspectives

Edited January 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Creating sock puppets is a board violation.

Yeah- it is fairly transparent. As Brade suggested, she is probably using a proxy now.

[Jeff K.]

Cultural aspects are always open to criticism. The difficulty is when cultural aspects spill into doctrine, and criticism spills into undermining the authority of those in charge.

[cinepro]

The fact that the Church is growing quickly is indeed an example of the converting power of the Book of Mormon, but only if the Book of Mormon is true. And the only thing that is a "true proof" of the Book of Mormon and the Church is a witness from the Holy Ghost.

From the Church website on Mongolia:

Six missionary couples were sent to assist the country's higher education program and to teach others about the Church. The first couples arrived in 1992 and lived in Ulaanbaatar, which is home to about half the population of Mongolia.

In July 1995, the first mission was established with Elder Richard E. Cook as the first mission president. The membership has grown substantially to more than 7,300 since 1992.

Just so I can put these numbers into context, if a non-true Christian Church were to have sent 12 missionaries to Ullanbaatar in 1992 and several hundred missionaries in 1995, how many members would they be expected to have?

[Jeff K.]

I do not believe success is proof of truth, or that truth overcomes other aspects to ensure growth. The growth of the church is indeed phenomenal, but I believe such growth is more a reflection of a refined process than it is truth. I am careful not to take pride in that growth. If you own the growth due to "righteousness" what can you state when the growth plateus or is negative? Better to understand process and be the good servant with talents and efforts.

The truth exists independent of success, and as mentioned, the Holy Ghost is the truest touchstone for testing truth.

[altersteve]

From the Church website on Mongolia:

Just so I can put these numbers into context, if a non-true Christian Church were to have sent 12 missionaries to Ullanbaatar in 1992 and several hundred missionaries in 1995, how many members would they be expected to have?

This has nothing to do with what I said.

[cinepro]

This has nothing to do with what I said.

This is what you said:

altersteve, on 10 January 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

The fact that the Church is growing quickly [in Mongolia] is indeed an example of the converting power of the Book of Mormon, but only if the Book of Mormon is true. And the only thing that is a "true proof" of the Book of Mormon and the Church is a witness from the Holy Ghost.

I'm not sure I understand your qualifier "but only if the Book of Mormon is true."

Are you saying that the Church wouldn't be growing quickly if the Book of Mormon weren't "true", or that the Church could grow just as quickly if the Book of Mormon weren't true but it wouldn't be an example of the converting power of the Book of Mormon (meaning only "true" books can have converting power)?

Or something else?

Edited January 11, 2012 by cinepro

[altersteve]

This is what you said:

I'm not sure I understand your qualifier "but only if the Book of Mormon is true."

Are you saying that the Church wouldn't be growing quickly if the Book of Mormon weren't "true", or that the Church could grow just as quickly if the Book of Mormon weren't true but it wouldn't be an example of the converting power of the Book of Mormon (meaning only "true" books can have converting power)?

Or something else?

Probably the second, but I realize the flaws with that statement now. Ultimately, all I was trying to point out is that membership statistics (whether in Mongolia or worldwide) cannot be used to determine the truthfulness of the Church or the Book of Mormon. Saying, "The Church is true because it has 14 million members" is a fallacious statement; the correct thing to say is that "The Church has 14 million members because it's true."

Edited January 12, 2012 by altersteve

[Prufrocks]

Mr. Robert F. Smith cites the following quote and then responds…[block]I would restate it all as falsifiable if somewhat redundant propositions:1. The only people who find compelling the Christian and Mormon apologetics regarding divinity and divine truth in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Abraham, are those who already believe or have significant investment or committment.2. Nobody (or virtually nobody, either way) who has critical understanding of the Bible converts from Disbelief to Belief, to either Christianity or Mormonism, either based on or in spite of that understanding.3. Childhood indoctrination and/or relative ignorance of the Bible are the only ways in which people enter into either Christianity or Mormonism.4. It is completely logical, reasonable and rational to conclude from the honest, sincere, critical study of the Bible that it is purely manmade in all respects. The only people who conclude otherwise, regardless of how intelligent or brilliant, are those who already have belief, commitment or investment.[/block[

Mr. Smith: "…The books and articles I have examined by those who make claims supporting any of your propositions are riddled with logical and factual errors (I have written extensively on this issue for many years). I can think of hundreds of factual and logical reasons why your claim that the Bible is “purely manmade in all respects” in proposition #4 is false. The same is true by extension to the Mormon Canon.

As a backwards novice struggling to keep up and to expand my library, could you please first cite any of those books and articles that make claims specifically supporting the specific propositions listed? Second, could you then show where those specific books & articles, and the propositions, are riddled with logical and factual errors related specifically to those propositions? (I'm trying to come up to speed on matters of logic, so help me mostly with the more basic errors of logic involved. Above and beyond would be gravy and I'll attempt to understand.) Could you also provide the references from your extensive writings specific to those propositions? Thanks.Also, the since Proposition #4 does not even make a claim that the Bible is "purely manmade in all respects," I'm confused how there could be hundreds of factual and logical reasons why a claim that was never made could be false. Or, perhaps, are you saying simply that it is not "logical, reasonable and rational to conclude from the honest, sincere, critical study of the Bible that it is purely manmade in all respects."? Perhaps that all interested persons and scholars who conclude that it is purely manmade are illogical, unreasonable and irrational? Thanks.Again, #3 appears rather clearly to include an EITHER/OR. Although I have no doubt that it's false, I'm still not sure how Mongolia falsifies it. Thanks