Anti-Mormonism; Built On A Shifting Foundation? E. D. Howe.

[mfbukowski]

All propositions are merely probabilistic, so there's a measure of faith involved any time we accept a proposition whose probability is less than 100%. Show me a person who never exercises any faith, and I'll show you a person who's brain dead. But what distinguishes the "faith" of a naturalist from faith in the stronger, religious sense, is that the naturalist tries to limit his faith to high-probability propositions.

Dang.

There goes your 100% wrong record. I agree with you. Kinda. I would say that the naturalist, in addition to high probability in his assertions, insists that they also be objectively verifiable by others.

He might assert a high probability that his stomach hurts after eating Mexican food, and that might be true, but such things are not verifiable by others.

Edited March 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

so to will anti-Mormonism shift and change.

Oh, if only that were true. Most of them are still stuck on the same drivel that was refuted decades ago.

[Zakuska]

This is true. Even if we go back to the 1830's, we would find the same theories that antimormons spew out today. It hasn't changed. However, the Internet has given the antimormons a lot of play and much fodder to damage. Thus, we have more and more sites being created with the same old message of antimormonism. It is becoming overkill for sure.

e.g. Solomon Spalding - His manuscript just won't die and every few years gets recycled as proof postive.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Zakuska

[Chris Smith]

There goes your 100% wrong record. I agree with you. Kinda. I would say that the naturalist, in addition to high probability in his assertions, insists that they also be objectively verifiable by others

He might assert a high probability that his stomach hurts after eating Mexican food, and that might be true, but such things are not verifiable by others.

Objective verification by others is simply a means of establishing high probability. It's not really necessary to perform that kind of check on one's subjective perception of a subjective state, because it's more or less tautological that my subjective experience correctly represents my subjective experience. On the other hand, objective checks could be helpful on the ways I linguistically interpret or describe my subjective states. For instance, a doctor might be able to tell me that it's not really my stomach that's hurting me; the pain I feel is psychosomatic. That could guide me to more effective treatment options.

[LDSToronto]

I certainly don't need to answer for Pahoran but I do have a comment on your question.

If somehow it were proven a total hoax (not sure that is possible) I would start a new religion tomorrow based on all the same principles, and I bet there would be a lot of followers by next Wednesday.

Just as a philosophy, Mormonism works very well in my opinion.

This is raises an interesting question.

Presumably, you are a member of the Church today because you believe it's claims to be true. Yet, should you discover, unequivocally, that the church's claims are not true, you would start a new religion based on the Mormonism.

This implies that we can factor truth claims out of the equation and state that the truthfulness of the church's claims are of little importance to you. Is this accurate?

H.

[Tarski]

Dang.

There goes your 100% wrong record. I agree with you. Kinda. I would say that the naturalist, in addition to high probability in his assertions, insists that they also be objectively verifiable by others.

He might assert a high probability that his stomach hurts after eating Mexican food, and that might be true, but such things are not verifiable by others.

Here are a few objectively verifiable things that matter:

The person complains of pain and expresses this in speech, body language and facial expression.

The person has overt behavior such as vomiting.

The person asks for medicine.

The person has measurable stomach cramps, release of various stress hormones and excess stomach acid.

Other people who know the person agree that the person is not malingering. (The agreeing itself is what is objective)

Given such things, the question of whether the person encountered a totally private ineffable pain quale is of relatively little consequence.

Most, if not all, of what matters is in principle objectively verifiable. We just choose not to waste out time doing so in all cases.

[Eugene S. Erlnmeyer]

I hope I'm not interrupting the discussion here to pose a question from the perspective of someone from the outside looking in and trying to find out more about the Mormon Church. Let's just say hypothetically that the comments here are accurate from those who apparently are believing Mormons. We'll say that the anti-Mormon theories, whatever those might be, have been debunked. What exactly does that buy you? It does not follow from that proposition that the claims of the Mormon Church are therefore true. Debunking a counter-theory does not relieve you of the burden of proof of your own propositions. Why not focus these energies on whatever evidence you feel there is that prove the Mormon Church's truth claims?

[Bond...James Bond]

deletes

Edited March 30, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Chris Smith]

(Ed Decker? Wikipedia allows the building of strawmen apparently)

In an encyclopedia article about anti-Mormonism, Ed Decker is a natural subject. The object of the article is to document anti-Mormon prejudice and its historical origins and impact, not to debate the merits of criticisms of LDS truth claims.

[Bond...James Bond]

In an encyclopedia article about anti-Mormonism, Ed Decker is a natural subject. The object of the article is to document anti-Mormon prejudice and its historical origins and impact, not to debate the merits of criticisms of LDS truth claims.

Yeah I got that. I was thinking it was a "Criticisms of Mormonism' wiki page which would lend itself to more current critiques, hence why I deleted my post.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Chris Smith]

Yeah I got that. I was thinking it was a "Criticisms of Mormonism' wiki page which would lend itself to more current critiques, hence why I deleted my post.

However, it would indeed be a strawman if, say, an MDD member were to start a thread representing the subjects of that Wikipedia page as typical of all who reject LDS truth claims.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Bond...James Bond]

However, it would indeed be a strawman if an MDD member were to, say, start a thread which assumes that the subjects of that Wikipedia page are typical of all who reject LDS truth claims.

That would never happen and you nose it.

[LeSellers]

Debunking a counter-theory does not relieve you of the burden of proof of your own propositions.

This is true, of course, but, before building anything, it is often helpful to clear the field of debris.

When anti-Mormons make their spurious and false claims, we are more-or-less obligated to address the issues they raise. Because if one side of the story, even if wholly false, is the only side someone hears, the natural assumption is that it is true.

Why not focus these energies on whatever evidence you feel there is that prove the Mormon Church's truth claims?

Indeed, we spend as much energy, if not more, doing exactly that.

However, in the world of religion, "truth claims" are not completely verifiable objectively. Religion, by its nature, is a faith-based proposition. This fact does not invalidate religion, but is does make it an unfit subject for the laboratory or courtroom.

See Moroni 10:4~7. Oh, heck, here 'tis.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is. 7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.

A key, and often missing, element of this promise is "with real intent". I cite Alma to illustrate.

15 And it came to pass that after Aaron had expounded these things unto him, the king said: What shall I do that I may have this eternal life of which thou hast spoken? Yea, what shall I do that I may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day? Behold, said he, I will give up all that I possess, yea, I will forsake my kingdom, that I may receive this great joy. 16 But Aaron said unto him: If thou desirest this thing, if thou wilt bow down before God, yea, if thou wilt repent of all thy sins, and will bow down before God, and call on his name in faith, believing that ye shall receive, then shalt thou receive the hope which thou desirest.

...

18 O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day.

Lehi

Edited March 30, 2012 by LeSellers

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I've read the anti-mormon article on wiki, its alright I guess for Wiki. I didn't read the article that Okrahomer linked to because I didn't feel like it. If it was meant to cast doubt upon wikipedia I've already got doubts so it would have simply confirmed my already held position about wiki. Sunt non qui mutua eius mortem in MDB?

Its all Latin to me.

[Brian 2.0]

All propositions are merely probabilistic, so there's a measure of faith involved any time we accept a proposition whose probability is less than 100%. Show me a person who never exercises any faith, and I'll show you a person who's brain dead. But what distinguishes the "faith" of a naturalist from faith in the stronger, religious sense, is that the naturalist tries to limit his faith to high-probability propositions.

I agree 100% to this.

As someone who has changed his views from TBM to still-questioning non-believer, I often get told "there are arguements and evidence for both sides, it just comes down to what you choose to believe.." They basically say this to me like all evidences are equal so if I choose to leave or disblieve something, it's simply out of personal preference becuase there is evidence on both sides "How can you KNOW it's not true", they ask.

I can't KNOW it's not true. But in looking at all the evidence (and I'm still looking at evidence and always welcome new evidence on both sides), it doesn't appear to me to be equally probable on both sides. Evidences are not created equal. Simply because there are "evidences" on both sides of an issue, doesn't not mean that there is 50% probability for each side of the debate. So when I personally weigh the evidences and choose to go with the explanation that seems most probable (or not go with any explanation and simply say, "I don't know"), it's not some "personal choice" in a sense that I'm just believing whatever I want to believe...

The personal choice I made is to view the world and in a way where my belief scales with the evidence, and the more probable something seems according to the evidence, the more belief I have in it.

But my "choice" to believe or disbelieve the historicity of the BOM, for example, is not some personal choice where I'll believe whatever I want to believe, it's a belief I've come to based upon applying the worldview that I have as explained in the previous bolded paragraph.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[Kevin Christensen]

If it's all about deciding what is most probable, the transparency about how one goes about calculating probabilities makes a huge difference. Indeed, the debates that have centered on problems that directly involve probabilities, such as the population issue for the Book of Mormon, where the starting populations and growth models employed differ radically. The word print debates, particularly the recent attempt that built on relative probabilities among candidate authors, that had no check in actual probabilities has also been instructive. The BYU Studies article that provided a way to calculate the probability of intentionality in chiasmus is another instructive situation. This sort of thing comes up all the time. Where N. R. Hansen observed that "All data is theory laden," we should also admit that all calculations for probability are theory laden as well. Fortunately there are ways to evaluate which of competing theories is better by recourse to values that do not depend on particular theories. But of course, there are no rules for applying those values.

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin Christensen

[thesometimesaint]

Brian 2.0:

It really is what evidence you choose to believe.

Did JS see God the Father and his Son? What evidence could there be other than what JS claimed?

Is the BoM a translation of an ancient religious document? Evidence keeps mounting that it is. Does that prove the Truth Claims? Nope. Ultimately Truth Claims can not be proved in any scientific sense of the word. We must rely on our beliefs in God and what we believe he tells us.

Edited March 30, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Brian 2.0]

If it's all about deciding what is most probable, the transparency about how one goes about calculating probabilities makes a huge difference. Indeed, the debates that have centered on problems that directly involve probabilities, such as the population issue for the Book of Mormon, where the starting populations and growth models employed differ radically. The word print debates, particularly the recent attempt that built on relative probabilities among candidate authors, that had no check in actual probabilities has also been instructive. The BYU Studies article that provided a way to calculate the probability of intentionality in chiasmus is another instructive situation. This sort of thing comes up all the time. Where N. R. Hansen observed that "All data is theory laden," we should also admit that all calculations for probability are theory laden as well. Fortunately there are ways to evaluate which of competing theories is better by recourse to values that do not depend on particular theories. But of course, there are no rules for applying those values.

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin Christensen

I agree. There are a good number of issues regarding calculating probabilities just doesn't yeild any results that can matter. This is where my "or not go with any explanation and simply say, "I don't know"" comes into play. Intentional chiasmus is a good example.

But that doesn't mean all theories or subjects become out of the realm of probabilities. It doesn't negate the use of probabilities and the worldview of choosing a course and scale of belief based upon probabilities in relation to the evidence.

[Chris Smith]

Did JS see God the Father and his Son? What evidence could there be other than what JS claimed?

In Bayesian reasoning, prior probability matters as much as evidence does. To assess the prior probability, you would in effect have to ask, "What are the odds that this general type of claim will be a legitimate divine communication as opposed to, for example, a lie, delusion, or false memory?" There are a large number of claims like Joseph Smith's throughout history, and many of them offer contradictory or nonsensical messages, while many others have strong evidence against their legitimacy. Meanwhile, psychologists and neuroscientists are learning more and more every day about hallucination and constructive memory errors. In these circumstances, the prior probability of Joseph's vision being a legitimate divine communication seems very small.

Then you have to take into account the evidence, which could essentially include everything Joseph did during his entire career, since all of it goes to his credibility.

[CA Steve]

A key, and often missing, element of this promise is "with real intent". I cite Alma to illustrate.

Lehi

Is real intent measured by a positive response to Moroni's challenge?

Edited March 30, 2012 by CA Steve

[Brian 2.0]

We must rely on our beliefs in God and what we believe he tells us.

There's the rub for me, in that I no longer consider "personal revelation" or "witnesses from God" as evidence, at least reliable evidence. So when I took those things off the scales in determining truth, the scales dramatically shifted the other way.

[Jaybear]

If it's all about deciding what is most probable, ....

Kevin Christensen

Faith is placing your belief in something even if its improbable. What you are describing is reason.

[thesometimesaint]

No scientist that I know of would take evidence off the scales. We might not have an adaquit explanation for any one event, but that doesn't in any way effect the validity of the event.

I claim that my mother loved me. There is no currently possible way for me to prove how she felt other than by her actions. As she died a few years ago that won't be possible until the next life.

[Brian 2.0]

No scientist that I know of would take evidence off the scales. We might not have an adaquit explanation for any one event, but that doesn't in any way effect the validity of the event.

Determining "love" of other concepts like that are not a scientific endeavor so talk of evidence and such is a bit different than "Is the BOM a an ancient historical text"

No scientist would take true evidence off the scales, but they also might have a different definition of what constitutes "evidence". When determining the probability that the SF Giants will win the NL pennant should statisticians account for the "evidence" that hundred of thousands of people (fans) feel that the Giants will win the pennant? Obviously not.

[Brian 2.0]

Faith is placing your belief in something even if its improbable. What you are describing is reason.

I agree. I think some "critics" just want that admitted to them. Basically, that it's "improbable." When people argue for a position and admit that they are using faith as evidence then it make sense. When someone battles on the grounds of reason trying to say it's "probable," the critics can get frustrated because the evidence, to them at least, doesn't seem agree with that statement. It's always refreshing to hear something like this, "I agree that according to scientific evidence that (insert topic, God, BOA, BOM) is less probable than other explanations, but that doesn't mean it CAN'T be true, and I choose to believe it over the other more probable reasons on faith."