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

[SearchDog]

This book and other early works are the foundation upon which Anti-Mormonism is built. If the foundation is corrupt, how long can the building stand?

Anti-Mormonism will crumble and the foundation of lies will be ruined the same day every knee is made to bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. And not a day sooner.

[mfbukowski]

I'll probably read reviews and criticism of these books (authoritative, of course) along with papers that reference the major themes of each. Thanks for the references.

H.

There are very few good discussions of these topics, but good luck. The Wikipedia articles tend to be pretty bad especially on Rorty.

[mfbukowski]

There are very few good discussions of these topics, but good luck. The Wikipedia articles tend to be pretty bad especially on Rorty.

This one's pretty good actually

http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/introser/rorty.htm

[Eugene S. Erlnmeyer]

Arguably the "Mormon Church" makes no scientifically verifiable "truth claims" in the sense you are using the word. I am a Wittgensteinian fideist, at least on these kind of questions.

Questions of faith have nothing to do with science- they are separate realms. You can toss some Kirkegaard in there as well if you like.

Oh yeah- and welcome to the board. Read Moroni 10:4-5, pray about it and you will either get an answer or not. That's about all that matters.

Despite my relatively limited experience with Mormonism, I will venture a guess that when Mormon missionaries are faced with skepticism about the claims of their church, their go-to response is unlikely to be an allusion to Wittgenstein and Kirkegaard.

If the Mormon Church makes no scientifically falsifiable claims, then this entire thread is non-sensical. Without any falsifiable claims, anti-Mormonism would be an unimpressive religious Mexican standoff (faith in X vs. faith in Y). Further, it would not be possible to debunk anti-Mormonism, since doing so would require showing how various claims about Mormonism are false, which you are positing is not possible since the Mormon Church itself does not make any falsifiable claims.

Also, while I appreciate your invitation to read and pray about the Book of Mormon, my looking into the Mormon Church really began when the legal matters about Warren Jeffs and his followers made the news. Warren Jeffs and those who belong to his church generally claim to have received some witness from the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is a true story. Since followers of Thomas Monson tend to reject Warren Jeffs, it seems that "read and pray about it" is not a sufficient answer when discussing the mainstream Mormon Church located in Salt Lake City.

[Eugene S. Erlnmeyer]

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.

I don't find that assertion to be particularly compelling. I've never taken a chemistry class where the teacher felt it necessary to address the claims of medieval alchemy in order to "clear the field of debris." Nor do I buy your assertion that it is natural to assume that a one-sided story is the true one. I don't need to hear "the other side of the story" about astrology to reject it out of hand.

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

Then you agree with my observation. If it is questionable whether you spend as much time giving people a reason to believe the claims of the Mormon Church as you do with damage control about counter-theories, then you are not making progress. You are conceding that you are coming from behind, and are merely fighting to get back to the position where you can start to make a prima facie case.

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.

In the United States, at least, truth claims (uncertain why you added scare quotes) of a religion are unfit for the courtroom because of the First Amendment, not because there is anything inherently untestable about religion. And once a religion's truth claims start involving claims of fact about the physical world, then no, the laboratory is not obligated to maintain a hands-off attitude.

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

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

Lehi

So evidently The Book of Mormon has a built-in "no true Scotsman" provision. If God fails to give you personal knowledge that The Book of Mormon is a real ancient document, then you must not have tried with real intent.

[ERayR]

Pahoran, do you believe that it is possible for evidence to surface that unequivocally shows The Book of Mormon is not divine, not a historical record? If that evidence existed, would you want to know about it, and would you accept it as true or deny it's truth?

H.

The other side of that question is if evidence surfaced that unequivocally proved the Book of Mormon to be true would you bend the knee and apologize for your antics?

[ERayR]

Despite my relatively limited experience with Mormonism, I will venture a guess that when Mormon missionaries are faced with skepticism about the claims of their church, their go-to response is unlikely to be an allusion to Wittgenstein and Kirkegaard.

If the Mormon Church makes no scientifically falsifiable claims, then this entire thread is non-sensical. Without any falsifiable claims, anti-Mormonism would be an unimpressive religious Mexican standoff (faith in X vs. faith in Y). Further, it would not be possible to debunk anti-Mormonism, since doing so would require showing how various claims about Mormonism are false, which you are positing is not possible since the Mormon Church itself does not make any falsifiable claims.

Also, while I appreciate your invitation to read and pray about the Book of Mormon, my looking into the Mormon Church really began when the legal matters about Warren Jeffs and his followers made the news. Warren Jeffs and those who belong to his church generally claim to have received some witness from the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is a true story. Since followers of Thomas Monson tend to reject Warren Jeffs, it seems that "read and pray about it" is not a sufficient answer when discussing the mainstream Mormon Church located in Salt Lake City.

Because they happen to follow Warrren Jeffs Makes them ineligible to receive a witness of the Book of Mormon? How so? The Book of Mormon is true no matter what tangents some believers go off on. It matters not what religious persuasion one holds he/she can receive a witness of it.

[Eugene S. Erlnmeyer]

Because they happen to follow Warrren Jeffs Makes them ineligible to receive a witness of the Book of Mormon? How so? The Book of Mormon is true no matter what tangents some believers go off on. It matters not what religious persuasion one holds he/she can receive a witness of it.

Ergo, I can receive a witness from the Holy Spirit that The Book of Mormon is a real ancient record, and still safely maintain that the Mormon Church headquartered in Salt Lake City is false. Right?

[Eugene S. Erlnmeyer]

Because they happen to follow Warrren Jeffs Makes them ineligible to receive a witness of the Book of Mormon? How so? The Book of Mormon is true no matter what tangents some believers go off on. It matters not what religious persuasion one holds he/she can receive a witness of it.

Would you thus agree that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a tangent that some believers in The Book of Mormon have gone off on?

[Ares]

Despite my relatively limited experience with Mormonism, I will venture a guess that when Mormon missionaries are faced with skepticism about the claims of their church, their go-to response is unlikely to be an allusion to Wittgenstein and Kirkegaard.

If the Mormon Church makes no scientifically falsifiable claims, then this entire thread is non-sensical. Without any falsifiable claims, anti-Mormonism would be an unimpressive religious Mexican standoff (faith in X vs. faith in Y). Further, it would not be possible to debunk anti-Mormonism, since doing so would require showing how various claims about Mormonism are false, which you are positing is not possible since the Mormon Church itself does not make any falsifiable claims.

Also, while I appreciate your invitation to read and pray about the Book of Mormon, my looking into the Mormon Church really began when the legal matters about Warren Jeffs and his followers made the news. Warren Jeffs and those who belong to his church generally claim to have received some witness from the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is a true story. Since followers of Thomas Monson tend to reject Warren Jeffs, it seems that "read and pray about it" is not a sufficient answer when discussing the mainstream Mormon Church located in Salt Lake City.

Go read the board rules and ponder them for a few days. Then come back and try not to make comparisons between the faith claims of the LDS Church and Warren Jeffs.

[LDSToronto]

The other side of that question is if evidence surfaced that unequivocally proved the Book of Mormon to be true would you bend the knee and apologize for your antics?

Well, that would mean that there is a God, and a Jesus, and Nephites, and prophets. Which would mean I was wrong. So I'd repent. Although I'd probably want to go to the Terrestrial Kingdom because that's were all my friends and family will be. So I'll refrain from bending the knee.

H.

Edited April 2, 2012 by LDSToronto

[blackstrap]

There are many people who believe just that way,so there must be another question to ask,or maybe several questions.I once asked a General Authority a question.His answer spoke volumes.He said he didn't know the answer to my question because he didn't have a testimony about that aspect.

I reference ECE s post.

Edited April 2, 2012 by blackstrap

[Calm]

I don't need to hear "the other side of the story" about astrology to reject it out of hand.

But you need to hear enough of the "other side" to ensure that what you are rejecting really is astrology (or whatever else is being criticized) and not a false construction. Edited April 2, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Despite my relatively limited experience with Mormonism, I will venture a guess that when Mormon missionaries are faced with skepticism about the claims of their church, their go-to response is unlikely to be an allusion to Wittgenstein and Kirkegaard.

Hey man, I can only do so much. I'm working on it!

If the Mormon Church makes no scientifically falsifiable claims, then this entire thread is non-sensical

Yep. We can agree on that one.

Without any falsifiable claims, anti-Mormonism would be an unimpressive religious Mexican standoff (faith in X vs. faith in Y).

Wow. Two in a row.

Further, it would not be possible to debunk anti-Mormonism, since doing so would require showing how various claims about Mormonism are false, which you are positing is not possible since the Mormon Church itself does not make any falsifiable claims.

Numero tres.

Also, while I appreciate your invitation to read and pray about the Book of Mormon, my looking into the Mormon Church really began when the legal matters about Warren Jeffs and his followers made the news. Warren Jeffs and those who belong to his church generally claim to have received some witness from the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is a true story. Since followers of Thomas Monson tend to reject Warren Jeffs, it seems that "read and pray about it" is not a sufficient answer when discussing the mainstream Mormon Church located in Salt Lake City.

Uh oh. Two mistakes. That takes you down to a C-

First of all, if praying about the church was an objectively replicable observation, you would be wrong because all that would prove is that Jeffs and Monson both agree that the book is true, in a scientific sense. Of course they would disagree about the present practice of polygamy, but their conclusions on the BOM would be irrelevant to their positions on polygamy in that theoretical universe.

The only problem is that praying about the BOM is NOT a scientific exercise so you are wrong on that one too. Religious matters have nothing to do with scientific verification remember? I don't recall you mentioning that in your reply

[mfbukowski]

Ergo, I can receive a witness from the Holy Spirit that The Book of Mormon is a real ancient record, and still safely maintain that the Mormon Church headquartered in Salt Lake City is false. Right?

Uh, Duh.

Do you even understand what Jeffs believes??? Why would you ask such a question?

[Pahoran]

Would you thus agree that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a tangent that some believers in The Book of Mormon have gone off on?

I know you can't respond right now, but I'd like to address this point.

I've long noted that it is a popular anti-Mormon gambit to support the claims of various apostate groups vis-a-vis the Church of Jesus Christ. Some support those claims directly, such as by outright agreeing that Joseph Smith or Wilford Woodruff "really" designated some successor outside the Quorum of the Twelve. Others support them indirectly by blithely pretending that the Church is just one of a multitude of "Mormon" sects each having approximately equal status and succession claims. Some even support the mutually exclusive claims of more than one splinter group.

But let's cut to the chase here. The heirs and successors of the anti-Mormons of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois in the 1830's-40's all focus their animus upon one group only. None of them attack the Community of Christ. They waste no time disputing the claims of the Temple Lot group. They expend no bandwith attacking Warren Jeffs and his shower. Most of them would probably have to google Tom Green's name. They don't care about any of those groups; they attack the church that Joseph Smith founded on April 6, 1830 and that now has its headquarters across the street from Temple Square in Salt Lake City; namely, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If they really believed any of those splinter groups was really that church, that's where they'd focus their energy. But they don't, because they know that it isn't.

So, in answer to your question: no, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not "a tangent that some believers in The Book of Mormon have gone off on."

And if you really thought it was, you wouldn't bother with it, would you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

This is the shifting or poor foundation, upon which all others are built.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Well, that would mean that there is a God, and a Jesus, and Nephites, and prophets. Which would mean I was wrong. So I'd repent. Although I'd probably want to go to the Terrestrial Kingdom because that's were all my friends and family will be. So I'll refrain from bending the knee.

H.

No you will not. "Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ".

Edited April 2, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee