Where Does Apologetics Fall Short?????

[DBMormon]

d

Remember this was a faithful member of the church who wrote this. He had no axe to grind and had every reason to be accurate. I find it hard to believe that a detailed description such as the one Clayton gave could have been created from a game of telephone unless Joseph told at least some sort of origin story.

so i am clear, I don't see anyone lying here between Joseph or Clayton. I think those that found the plates perhaps found a bone nearby and stretched their story, and joseph just went off what he was told. Bradley shows how the one sentence translation could have easily been formed from what Joseph had available to him in his study and love of languages

[Calm]

Remember this was a faithful member of the church who wrote this. He had no axe to grind and had every reason to be accurate.

And probably a desire to provide as much information as possible for those who were to read the account...which may have lead him to add from sources that were less than knowledgable about what Joseph had actually done/stated and as DB pointed out, Joseph himself may have depended on others for his assumptions about what the plates were. If there was no apparent reason not to trust someone, from what I have read of Joseph, his usual default position was to trust (and unfortunately this wouldn't be the only occasion this led to trouble). Edited February 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I asked if that was reasonable or a stretch.... I also looked at what I saw as evidences of the gospel... and asked myself do these hold any weight?

I think it is very important to be as realistic as possible as to why we give certain aspects more or less weight than others, iow why we value somethings more than others AND how this influences our judgments.

Someone who has grown up in a polygamous society and has had mostly positive experiences with such will give a very different 'weight' to evidence dealing with such relationships than someone who saw a parent betraying another one in an adulterous relationship, for one example. For another one that deals with what one finds believable or not, where the issue becomes one of trust, I have seen dramatic differences in the ability to trust based on one's personal experiences, especially if one has grown up in an abusive home. Someone who has had a lifelong loving and supportive relationship with their father can much more easily imagine and relate to a loving and supporting Father in Heaven, while someone whose relationship with their father is based on fear will often relate to God in the same way even if intellectually they accept the idea of a perfect loving being.

[thews]

Here is another example of why many skeptics have difficulty with apologist reasoning. As Ahab states, the LDS church teaches that "evolution never happened," yet there is a mountain of scientific observation that provides evidence for the theory of evolution. The basis of evolution, natural selection, has been observed in the numerous studies, most famously in the "peppered moth" studies (http://en.wikipedia...._moth_evolution). Likewise, the scientific evidence of the fossil records (which points to changes in early species), evidence for a "universal" genetic code, the geographic distribution of related species, and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations certainly point to the workings of evolution.

To refute evolution and accept creationism, one has to not only ignore some rather significant and rather simple scientific evidence, but also make all kinds of speculative leaps of reason, such as the fossil record has been tampered with as part of satan's plan, etc, etc.

I find this type of retort the inverse of the OP from an Atheist’s perspective. To state, “To refute evolution and accept creationism, one has to not only ignore some rather significant and rather simple scientific evidence, but also make all kinds of speculative leaps of reason,” it implies there’s sufficient scientific data to derive a conclusion that doesn’t require leaps of reason. The foundation for creationism is that God created matter. The foundation for an Atheistic viewpoint (based on scientific data) is that *nothing* (doesn’t exist) mixed with another form of *nothing* (which also doesn’t exit) created the universe and all of its properties.

The quantum leap one has to take to then segue into chemicals mixing to form all life, is a speculative leap of reason, as this isn’t a scientific fact, but a reverse-engineered conclusion based on the existing data. From plants making seeds and fruit, to humans being the intelligent benefactors of this same seed, is a speculative leap of reason. The scientific method is held to the existing universe which can observe things that exist. Without data, it’s just another opinion, but if that data has a finite foundation (ignoring the origin of matter), it’s a logical fallacy to claim one (creationism vs. Atheism) carries more logical weight, as each has an infinite boundary condition to explain how *nothing* created the universe.

What I find interesting about the Atheist’s perspective is the insistence that an infinite perspective can someday be achieved; it can’t. Science will never (yes I used “never” here) come up with a theory to explain how something that doesn’t exist, became something that does exist. One can throw out string theories they don’t understand and theories how antimatter is made up of smaller particles of antimatter (which also doesn’t exist) and claim time zero… when it all supposedly *happened*, can be explained, but the foundation that nothing existed remains. Infinity and an infinite thought process are beyond the human thoght process capability. No one can explain who made God, or where the first particle of *something* happened, let alone claiming chemicals mixed together to create a cell that divided and created life… a man’s got to know his limitations.

To the OP, where Mormon apologetics fall short (IMO) is answering simple questions. Being a critic that’s been through more than a few of these conversations, the responses (again IMO) are based on arguments from silence. One can’t argue what isn’t, which then puts the burden of proof on the counter proving what isn’t, really wasn’t.

The Book of Abraham arguments are a prime example of this. The evidence known to exist, is an incorrect translation of the Egyptian language. If one counters that the actual papyrus used was not the one known to exist, then the argument from silence, is that it is possible for there to be a missing element. What has to be ignored is the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, which is also an incorrect translation of the Egyptian language. If Joseph Smith claimed to “translate” Egyptian, then one would assume these notes would be correct. The crux of this topic is admitting that Joseph Smith claimed to be able to translate Egyptian, but there is no evidence to support that claim.

Another area I find interesting, is defining what the Urim and Thummim was. Its conflated use attempts to bridge the gap between seer stones and the Nephite spectacles, but what it isn’t, is a third entity. The first use of “Urim and Thummim” in Mormon history isn’t used until 1833 (3 years after the Book of Mormon was published), and isn’t mentioned in the Book of Commandments. Note in the following the insertion of “by the means of the ^bUrim and Thummim” implies the Nephite spectacles are the Urim and Thummim. Since the Nephite spectacles were taken back after the lost 116 pages, the only items that remained and used to translate every single word of the published Book of Mormon (minus the lost 116 pages) were Joseph Smith’s brown and white seer stones.

https://www.lds.org/.../dc/10?lang=eng

1 Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you ^adelivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the ^bUrim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.

What I also find interesting is the continued assertion by Mormon apologists that the questions have already been answered. They may have been responded to, but “answered” assumes both sides agree to the conclusion. They may have been brought up numerous times, but “answered” is in the side that agrees with claim.

Edited February 14, 2013 by thews

[volgadon]

The LDS gospel claims to be pure and simple truth.

Something can be simple, yet deep or profound, too. Music is a classic example. The better music tends to sound simple and easy, but once one listens closer, or tries to replicate the piece it is a whole other story. Of course, we sometimes overthink things.

"

The rabbinical student is about to leave for America. When he asks his mentor for advice, the rabbi offers an adage that, he tells the student, will guide him for the rest of his life. "Always remember," the rabbi said sagely, "life is like a fountain."

Deeply impressed by his teacher's wisdom, the student departs for a successful career in America.

Thirty years later, he learns that the rabbi is dying, so he returns for a final visit.

"Rabbi," he says, "I have one question. For 30 years, whenever I was sad or confused, I thought about the phrase you passed on to me, and it has helped me through many difficult times.

But to be perfectly frank, I have never understood the full meaning of it. Now that you are about to enter the realm of truth, tell me, dear rabbi, how is life like a fountain?"

Wearily, the old man replies, "All right, so it's not like a fountain." "

[volgadon]

The problem I see is that apologetics doesn't turn to the spiritual confirmation of the otherwise confounding; it tries to shoehorn the facts into a pre-determined religious belief system and prove the truth of that system, while disproving the critics. If one wishes to resort only to faith and the "Spirit," then say so. Don't insist against the evidence that the Sensen papyrii really are the Book of Abraham, or that "sheum" proves the historicity of the Book of Mormon when a whole bunch of scientific evidence suggests that it is less than what it claims to be. Intellectual honesty, please.

Apolegetics aren't necessarily meant to turn into spiritual confirmation. Apolegetics can only go so far, personal revelation must supply the rest

Also, let's not conflate intellectual honesty with simplicity. A simple answer can be just as incorrect as a complex one, so that can't be the right definition. Simple answers are also open to quite a few questions themselves.

[Sethbag]

But that domino, as you call it, will never fall. Someone may not believe God communicates to us through his Holy Spirit, for whatever reasons they don't believe that, but once they have heard from God through him there is no longer any doubt that he does. And then at that point it's just a matter of learning the things he will tell us, and has told us, while distinguishing the influences we get from other sources.

The big disconnect for me was when I finally realized just how many people were claiming the same kind of spirit epistemology as you do, but getting such widely varying revelations that way. Apparently this method is, at best, highly unreliable. That very unreliability is itself a giant red flag that the whole concept is probably bogus, however. And once you see that, it's all over.

And we actually agree on a lot more than we disagree on... speaking of those who testify to have learned from God directly through the Holy Spirit. I think the differences mainly stem from not having enough experience in distinguishing the influence of Holy Spirit from the other influences we feel, but as we get better and better at discerning that difference things become clearer and clearer.

Btw, it's not that I never believed that I received knowledge of truth through the spirit. I certainly did believe that. I came to recognize, however, that what I had attributed to the Holy Spirit was really just my own beliefs, mingled with feelings and emotion.

People like you actually bolster our position, Sethbag. You freely admit you don't recognize the influence of the Holy Spirit in your own life so it's no wonder why you don't know what you don't know.

I think you're putting words into my mouth in a way that is detrimental to my position, so I'd like to clarify. It's not that I don't "recognize the influence of the Holy Spirit in my life" because it's there but I just don't know how to see it. It's that I don't recognize the technique of ascertaining truth by attempting to discern some spiritual manifestation in my heart or mind as being a technique that actually works in some objectively reliable way.

And then there are people who do claim to have heard from the Holy Spirit who don't agree with us who know what the Holy Spirit has taught us, simply showing us they're not adept at distinguishing the influence of the Spirit, either. And then there are those of us who have heard what we've heard from God, and we know whose influence that is.

Dunning Kruger is rampant in the religious world, perhaps most especially in the area of "spirit" epistemology. You know how to correctly discern the Spirit from just emotion or feelings, but those who disagree with you don't. They're doing it wrong, but you're doing it right. And you know this because, um, you just know. The fact that they all think they're doing it right and you're doing it wrong doesn't phase you, because in this they're obviously mistaken. ;-)

We're on solid ground here. People like you just don't know what you are missing.

You are on solid ground in exactly the same sense someone on drugs really believes they can fly. The sensation of surety is so strong with them that they actually climb up onto a ledge on the roof top and jump. The know they can fly. Their mental state is one in which they are 100% convinced that they can fly. So they jump, and plummet to their death, or at least to their grave injury.

The bottom line is I have a pretty good idea what I'm missing according to you, and I also have a pretty good idea that it's nothing I wasn't well rid of.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Sethbag

[Sethbag]

Apolegetics aren't necessarily meant to turn into spiritual confirmation. Apologetics can only go so far, personal revelation must supply the rest.

Have you ever noticed that personal revelation, whether explicitly called that or by some other name, seems to fill in the holes in billions of other peoples' faith too? And that the "truth" they have via this route usually isn't the same "truth" you got from the Spirit? Things that make you go "hmm".

[cdowis]

Have you ever noticed that personal revelation, whether explicitly called that or by some other name, seems to fill in the holes in billions of other peoples' faith too?

Your assertion is just "blowing in the wind". You give absolutely no evidence for you statement, other than you just say it.

And that the "truth" they have via this route usually isn't the same "truth" you got from the Spirit? Things that make you go "hmm".

There is truth in every religion, and the Lord would certainly confirm thru the Spirit that we should love our fellowman, and give reverence to Deity. It would not matter what religion they profess.

I would strongly disagree that, for example, a terrorist, one who murders anyone who disagrees with him, prays earnestly whether they should practice jihad, and that they receive an answer through the Holy Spirit that this is a true principal.

Your assertion is nonsense.

Edited February 14, 2013 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

To whomever feels inclined to answer that is an apologetic...do we need any facts to back up faith, or is this a dumb question?

[cdowis]

Good question.

I have always considered apologetics as a hobby, and has little to do with faith. But, obviously, others consider it very seriously.

[Poly]

When a member of one of the other versions of the restoration gospel as revealed through Joseph Smith use the exact same methodology known commonly as "Moroni's Promise" to conclude that yes, their polygamist sect is correct; yes even though they are only 14 they should marry a man who already has 16 wives, etc., confirmation given them through the "holy ghost". Is said testimony invalid because somehow they are "doing it wrong"?

They apply the same methodology and come to a different conclusion about which (branch of the) church is true. They are right, and the SLC main branch is wrong as it abandoned polygamy. They use the same "gift of the holy ghost" to guide their lives, and yet is guides them into a practice proscribed by the LDS church. Is their listening to the still small voice, their application of Moroni's promise valid?

[semlogo]

If you really believe that keep watching as you travel through time and you'll see a time when one kind of being becomes another kind of being. I already know you'll never see that, but that won't stop you from looking.

I can't witness the formation of a new star from start to finish either, but we see stars all the time in different stages of formation and thus infer information about the process.

We observe genetic mutations all the time - hundreds per generation. There is no mechanism in place in organisms to stop speciation.

No, I know they can show certain characterisitcs about each kind of being.

No it doesn't. It just shows the kind of being that produced the offspring, and each and every time it is the same kind.

This is simply incorrect. We can find the genetic markers inherited from other species. The genetic record exactly matches the fossil record. What a coincidence, right?

Edited February 14, 2013 by semlogo

[cdowis]

Someone is mistaken, and we will be held accountable for our decisions in life.

Crudely put, you throw the dice and place the bets. And you are responsible for the decisions you make, but that is what the Final Judgement is all about. The Lord is merciful and all knowing. And the Lord has told us not to judge others -- we are only responsible for OUR decision.

Finally, I am a great believer in the test in Alma 32, planting the seed, nurishing it and see what comes of it. I am quite satisfied with what faith has wrought for me thru the membership in this church. I would be very suspect of any fruit from an apostate polygamist sect, but that's just me.

Edited February 14, 2013 by cdowis

[semlogo]

I find this type of retort the inverse of the OP from an Atheist’s perspective. To state, “To refute evolution and accept creationism, one has to not only ignore some rather significant and rather simple scientific evidence, but also make all kinds of speculative leaps of reason,” it implies there’s sufficient scientific data to derive a conclusion that doesn’t require leaps of reason. The foundation for creationism is that God created matter. The foundation for an Atheistic viewpoint (based on scientific data) is that *nothing* (doesn’t exist) mixed with another form of *nothing* (which also doesn’t exit) created the universe and all of its properties.

Two comments. It's not a debate between scientists and believers, as if science is a synonym for atheism. Millions of believers (admittedly a minority of LDS believers) accept science and don't feel the need to poo poo knowledge in defense of their faith.

Second, your characterization of the scientific view seems more informed by bumper stickers and creationist memes than actual science. In other words, it's a straw man.

[semlogo]

Someone is mistaken, and we will be held accountable for our decisions in life.

Crudely put, you throw the dice and place the bets. And you are responsible for the decisions you make, but that is what the Final Judgement is all about. The Lord is merciful and all knowing. And the Lord has told us not to judge others -- we are only responsible for OUR decision.

Finally, I am a great believer in the test in Alma 32, planting the seed, nurishing it and see what comes of it. I am quite satisfied with what faith has wrought for me thru the membership in this church. I would be very suspect of any fruit from an apostate polygamist sect, but that's just me.

I think if we are accountable for anything, it will be how we treat others rather than our reasoning ability.

[cdowis]

This is simply incorrect. We can find the genetic markers inherited from other species. The genetic record exactly matches the fossil record. What a coincidence, right?

Not sure if you are saying that fossils have extractable DNA.

[cdowis]

I think if we are accountable for anything, it will be how we treat others rather than our reasoning ability.

I certainly agree. That's why I consider apologetics as a hobby, rather than a religious activity.

[ERayR]

56. If we are the chosen people why is our taste so bad that we actually eat jello with vegetables in it?

I have worked out the rest of yours but this one still baffles me.

It baffles me why any sane rational person would even worry about this.

[cdowis]

Wearily, the old man replies, "All right, so it's not like a fountain."

I thought I had it figured out. But I see things very differently now.

Edited February 14, 2013 by cdowis

[semlogo]

Not sure if you are saying that fossils have extractable DNA.

No, what I mean is we can trace evolution through a study of the genomes of currently-available species, and it confirms the evolutionary path found in fossil record.

Example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

[Poly]

Why? When it was taught by multiple prophets that polygamy is a necessaty for exaltation, that it was an eternal principal, and that it would never be abandoned, do you feel that your viewpoint arrived at by the same methodology is more valid than a member of one of the polygamous offshoots?

They view you as a member of an apostate sect.

Is the problem with their conclusion, your conclusion, the base assumptions, or the methodology?

[volgadon]

Have you ever noticed that personal revelation, whether explicitly called that or by some other name, seems to fill in the holes in billions of other peoples' faith too? And that the "truth" they have via this route usually isn't the same "truth" you got from the Spirit? Things that make you go "hmm".

Personal revelation is, by its very definition, personal. I can't and won't speculate about others.

[TomHagen]

Apologetics only works if the person asking the question wants to hear the answer. I believe there are some who are so impressed with their own ability to argue they don’t really hear the answer given. Instead they find another way to present their argument or quickly move on to something else.

Time was that I always said the same thing. "It's OK to question if you're genuinely seeking the answer," I used to say. But then I took the time to actually look at the answer that were being given. Apologetics work for people who are predisposed to accept an answer - any answer - that reassures their faith, no matter how unfounded or poorly constructed the answer is. It gives them a chance to have faith in the apologetics, accepting that the apologists understand it and have a testimony, so the average member should too. Where they fail is when people actually engage their critical thinking skills and realize that most mormon apologetics doesn't make any sense or has little - and painfully contorted - actual evidence.

[Sethbag]

Personal revelation is, by its very definition, personal. I can't and won't speculate about others.

But you should.