LDS II: The Mormons

[Slowvehicle]

srFF: you still have not responded to the actual questions asked of you; questions that have been asked, patiently, for quite some time.

 

[Giordano]

You find it convenient to ignore the fact that you and others tend to link "intentional"/"unintentional" to the claim that the Church actively sought to hurt certain individuals. I do not deny that some individuals were hurt by some Church policies; however, you cannot proceed from that position to claim that the principal purpose of said policies was to hurt people. The principal purpose was grounded in Church doctrine (wrong though you believe it to be); hurting people was/is an unsought byproduct of that doctrine.

It's for their own good, whether they want it or not! I already made this clear in an earlier post. Very few people do things with the principal purpose of hurting others; they just do things that they know will hurt others for the "greater good."

By the way, you avoidance of the many more current points posted here s is noted.

 

[Giordano]

Brigham Young, who implemented the Church's ban on ordaining blacks to the priesthood, got it wrong. There is, in my mind, no doubt about that. For how long, however, are you going to hold his grievous error against the Church? The actions of LDS at Mountain Meadows were terribly wrong, and there is at least some reason to believe that BY orchestrated them. Even if he didn't know before the fact, he certainly knew afterwards. Should we continue to hold that event against the Church? Should we take past errors as evidence that the Church makes errors of the same gravity today? You seem to be suggesting that the answer is yes.

No, I don"t hold these past policies against the current Church; only their current policies.

 

[Pup]

You seem to be wedded to the notion that the only reality that exists is that which can be perceived through the senses. Thus it appears you think that everything that "is" is knowable through human faculties. Such are the constraints of your paradigm.

Not addressed to me, I realize, but...

You're skipping over a long, long debate about how something can affect this universe if it has no observable interaction with the universe. To "win" that debate, you'd need to address that argument, which would overturn the entire scientific paradigm.

This is great, though. I think we're really getting to the heart of the argument, rather than going around in circles about barley and horses.

The usual stance from religious believers who also want to follow the scientific method is either NOMA, meaning the scientific method is not expected to work for religious beliefs, or to abandon the foundations of scientific reasoning--yet you're seeming to want both: to have people accept your scientific reasoning right down to the foundations of the universe, and yet not to engage the basic question in my first sentence.

I'm guessing you surely don't mean literally human senses, and that you would allow everything from microscopes to radio telegraphs to any sort of fair experiment to enhance those senses. (Would be glad to have clarified, though I may not answer if I have to sense the message without my glasses on. )

There are those who posit that a god created the universe and walked away, no longer having any interaction, but that would be contrary to LDS doctrine concerning revelation, prayer, etc. So that's why I'm also guessing the realm under discussion would be one where there is some measurable interaction between a supernatural entity and the universe, else it wouldn't fit LDS doctrine.

An example of what you're talking about, I think, would be a double-blind study showing an LDS priesthood blessing for LDS believers would produce measurably better results than a similar Catholic ceremony for sick patients--all controlled and fairly done, of course.

I would definitely sit up and take notice at that experiment, if well controlled, even though it's not directly perceivable by human senses. No one could necessarily sense how the illness was being lessened, for example, regardless how they tested each patient, because each individual patient might seem to get better for mundane reasons. But to produce such a statistical anomalie would require interaction between a supernatural force and humans consistent with what the Mormon supernatural heirarchy is claimed to do.

Note that if Mormons say the claim is unfair because they'd claim instead that God's will would be done, rather than magical healing, then the result is no different from what would be observable by chance in a universe without a god, since we already know the statistical baseline for healing.

We'd need a testable Mormon claim that shows God does influence this universe in a way not predictable by chance. It's up to Mormons to make this claim, but it's difficult to get them to pin it down because people intrinsically understand how the "real" world works, so all religions need to make up excuses why supernatural claims fail when tested. Therefore, they've already built in that excuse to their claims.

What is an example of how the Mormon god(s) interact with the universe in a way that's different from chance alone? If there is none, why should I/we/you believe such gods are necessary, any more than any other thing which never interacts with the universe?

That is indeed the heart of the debate.

After all, even the theories about what our senses tell us are in the same predicament. It all comes down to saying that science gives us a consistent and useful look at the universe through the ring of a giant circuluc. ("How to Win Every Argument," pp. 27-28)

Exactly. If you want to rely on the scientific method, it needs to go all the way down to include everything which interacts with the universe no matter how obscurely, or be abandoned at some point (NOMA).

This is not a debate which one can walk into the middle of and expect to ignore the basic foundations of, and that's a basic foundation.

Again, I'm assuming that by human senses you mean in any measurable way and are excluding a god who created the universe and abandoned it without further interaction, but please clarify if I'm wrong.

If Mormons or anyone can propose an experiment that would raise the question: How did God do this previously inexplicable thing while interacting at some point with the universe? then I think you'd have the whole scientific world sitting up and taking notice. It's just that, by definition, no supernatural claim about anything, from dowsing to prayer, has held up to that kind of scrutiny. The claims all evaporate as irreproducible. That's the issue that needs addressed.

 

[turingtest]

Brigham Young, who implemented the Church's ban on ordaining blacks to the priesthood, got it wrong. There is, in my mind, no doubt about that. For how long, however, are you going to hold his grievous error against the Church? The actions of LDS at Mountain Meadows were terribly wrong, and there is at least some reason to believe that BY orchestrated them. Even if he didn't know before the fact, he certainly knew afterwards. Should we continue to hold that event against the Church? Should we take past errors as evidence that the Church makes errors of the same gravity today? You seem to be suggesting that the answer is yes.

Why not? Don't today's stances come from the same source as the past errors, your "Divine Inspiration"?

TBF, you haven't actually answered the question yet as to whether you think divine inspiration is a source to be given equal weight with plain old mundane explanation, though you've certainly strongly implied the equality (if not the superiority) of your non-falsifiable inspiration. Maybe now would be a good time to actually answer the question.

(And "How To Win An Argument"? What is that, a primer on logic-chopping?)

 

[Slowvehicle]

Why not? Don't today's stances come from the same source as the past errors, your "Divine Inspiration"?

TBF, you haven't actually answered the question yet as to whether you think divine inspiration is a source to be given equal weight with plain old mundane explanation, though you've certainly strongly implied the equality (if not the superiority) of your non-falsifiable inspiration. Maybe now would be a good time to actually answer the question.

(And "How To Win An Argument"? What is that, a primer on logic-chopping?)

Yep. Exactly that. Pirie lists and explains common logical errors, then demonstrates how to use fallacious reasoning to "win" arguments, with no regard for content. Pirie's fans usually vacillate between using Pirie's "techniques", and accusing others of having to stoop to using Pirie's techniques.

 

[skyrider44]

Why not? Don't today's stances come from the same source as the past errors, your "Divine Inspiration"?

So according to you, there is no learning curve. Knowledge acquisition by a person or organization or country doesn't exist. Positions a country took 50 years ago are fixed. Hmmm . . . I wonder how the Berlin Wall came down.

TBF, you haven't actually answered the question yet as to whether you think divine inspiration is a source to be given equal weight with plain old mundane explanation, though you've certainly strongly implied the equality (if not the superiority) of your non-falsifiable inspiration. Maybe now would be a good time to actually answer the question.

Whether or not divine inspiration is superior to mundane explanations depends on the issue being addressed. Some highly creative individuals, for example, have attributed their creativity to divine inspiration. One such individual was George Frideric Handel, who—as you must know—composed the Messiah.

(And "How To Win An Argument"? What is that, a primer on logic-chopping?)

It's available in paperback. You would do well to read it.

 

[abaddon]

So according to you, there is no learning curve. Knowledge acquisition by a person or organization or country doesn't exist. Positions a country took 50 years ago are fixed. Hmmm . . . I wonder how the Berlin Wall came down.

Odd thing to say when you base your beliefs on the ramblings of a nineteenth century confidence trickster.

Whether or not divine inspiration is superior to mundane explanations depends on the issue being addressed. Some highly creative individuals, for example, have attributed their creativity to divine inspiration. One such individual was George Frideric Handel, who—as you must know—composed the Messiah.

Which proves only that Handel believed in superstitions, nothing more.
In other words, Handel was a crank.

It's available in paperback. You would do well to read it.

Why?

 

[Giordano]

So according to you, there is no learning curve. Knowledge acquisition by a person or organization or country doesn't exist. Positions a country took 50 years ago are fixed. Hmmm . . . I wonder how the Berlin Wall came down.

To reiterate what Slowvehicle posted: it is you who refuses to alter their understanding from what a 19th century con-man stated as true. Despite all the evidence in favor of what we now know and the strong proof that the 19th century story was both wrong and made-up.

 

[tsig]

So according to you, there is no learning curve. Knowledge acquisition by a person or organization or country doesn't exist. Positions a country took 50 years ago are fixed. Hmmm . . . I wonder how the Berlin Wall came down.



Whether or not divine inspiration is superior to mundane explanations depends on the issue being addressed. Some highly creative individuals, for example, have attributed their creativity to divine inspiration. One such individual was George Frideric Handel, who—as you must know—composed the Messiah.



It's available in paperback. You would do well to read it.

Thought we were talking god here, you know, the one who's the same today as yesterday. If your church doesn't have gods' wisdom then what is it's reason for being?

 

[Giordano]

Whether or not divine inspiration is superior to mundane explanations depends on the issue being addressed. Some highly creative individuals, for example, have attributed their creativity to divine inspiration. One such individual was George Frideric Handel, who—as you must know—composed the Messiah.

I don't seek to address or care what inspired who- it really doesn't matter (was Handel a believer in the BofM for example, or in a different religion? Did it matter?). One can easily be inspired by a falsehood or an evil. The important thing is the product. Handel's music is a real product that does not require that I believe in magic for me to hear it. Isaac Newton was very religious in a religion that your own Church disagrees with (at least in many of the details), and he dabbled in alchemy; do I need to share these beliefs to use calculus or his theories of motion? Turing was an atheist. Did that lack of divine inspiration mean that he couldn't develop incredible insights into computer theory that are useful now?

 

[tsig]

Odd thing to say when you base your beliefs on the ramblings of a nineteenth century confidence trickster.




Which proves only that Handel believed in superstitions, nothing more.
In other words, Handel was a crank.


Why?

All his apologetics just succeed in making the Mormon Church into just another human organization ran by ordinary fallible humans with no divine inspiration.

Instead of a god ordained prophet fearlessly speaking the words of god they get some old men afraid of their shadows.

 

[Slowvehicle]

So according to you, there is no learning curve. Knowledge acquisition by a person or organization or country doesn't exist. Positions a country took 50 years ago are fixed. Hmmm . . . I wonder how the Berlin Wall came down.

I wonder where Pirie claims that the argumentum ad "so" allows you to substitute your own inventions for what a poster has actually posted.

Whether or not divine inspiration is superior to mundane explanations...

"Divine inspiration"; "mundane explanations". Or, as reality woulde have it, "superstition" and "reality".

You need to demonstrate, with actual evidence (rather than, for instance, appealing to the magical), the mere existence of the "divine afflatus" (as distinct from, say, delusion and self-deception) before you can honestly compare it with, or assess its superiority over, reality-based "explanations". One wonders why so many "divine inspirations" flatly contradict each other; why so many "revelations" come at the heels of legislative action...

...depends on the issue being addressed. Some highly creative individuals, for example, have attributed their creativity to divine inspiration. One such individual was George Frideric Handel, who—as you must know—composed the Messiah.

It seems here that you are advancing the claim that Messiah is somehow significant because you claim Handel claimed to believe in "divine inspiration". I wonder if you would explain how, in your understanding, a composer's superstitions advance her compositions.

It's available in paperback. You would do well to read it.

Oddly enough, your first mention of Pirie in these threads was to accuse me (incorrectly) of employing his technique of intentionally resorting to logical fallacy in order to "win" an argument. I am curious as to why you think that others "would do well" to practice Pirie's suggested techniques.

 

[Giordano]

I must remark that skyrider44's posts appear again to be floppy around seeking to change the discussion away from topics that he apparently can't answer. Weren't we discussing the lack of evidence for many of the tales in the BofM about the early Americas? Instead, skyrider44's posts appear to prefer discussing "intent to do harm" and the value of the scientific vs religious approaches. If we are going to go into these topics, can I assume that skyrider44 has no evidence for many of the claims of JS as to pre-Columbian America?

 

[John Jones]

You seem to be wedded to the notion that the only reality that exists is that which can be perceived through the senses. Thus it appears you think that everything that "is" is knowable through human faculties. Such are the constraints of your paradigm.

Not wedded to, but convinced by. Joseph Smith himself claimed to have translated the BoM and the BoA through the senses and human faculties.

These constraints apply equally to the BoM, the BoA and all other utterances of human thought.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I must remark that skyrider44's posts appear again to be floppy around seeking to change the discussion away from topics that he apparently can't answer. Weren't we discussing the lack of evidence for many of the tales in the BofM about the early Americas? Instead, skyrider44's posts appear to prefer discussing "intent to do harm" and the value of the scientific vs religious approaches. If we are going to go into these topics, can I assume that there is skyrider44 has no evidence for many of the claims of JS as to pre-Columbian America?

I spent yesterday at an NMSTA conference. One of the opportunities of which I took advantage was discussing the pre-colombian period (in New Mexico and in Mexico), with representatives from Chiapas, and Crow Canyon, and Chaco Canyon, and Bandelier, and Casa Grande, and Acoma/Acomita, and Blackwater Draw (among others) about the sectarian myth of a "missing" civilization in the pre-colombian americas, incorporating the anachronisms of horses, kine, swine, elephants, minted coinage, and (most risibly) steelmongery. Not a single person (be they from education, administration, or park management) advanced the idea that the fact that no such has been found indicated that we just weren't looking hard enough, or in the right place (my tapir-drawn mesoamerican chariot was a big hit).

 

[skyrider44]

I don't seek to address or care what inspired who- it really doesn't matter (was Handel a believer in the BofM for example, or in a different religion? Did it matter?). One can easily be inspired by a falsehood or an evil. The important thing is the product. Handel's music is a real product that does not require that I believe in magic for me to hear it. Isaac Newton was very religious in a religion that your own Church disagrees with (at least in many of the details), and he dabbled in alchemy; do I need to share these beliefs to use calculus or his theories of motion? Turing was an atheist. Did that lack of divine inspiration mean that he couldn't develop incredible insights into computer theory that are useful now?

Nothing you have written changes my point; i.e., divine inspiration has been operative in the creation of some of the world's greatest inventions and works of art. How do we know that? The men and women who created said inventions and art have, themselves, stated they were divinely inspired. You are free, obviously, to disbelieve them, in which case you suppose you know more about how they accomplished what they did than they do.

I have not said, contrary to what your questions imply, that divine inspiration is necessary to develop, for example, something comparable to our "incredible insights into computer theory." Of course, you don't know whether or not divine inspiration was involved in said creation. You are merely parroting the atheistic position.

 

[Craig4]

So divine inspiration caused Smith to write about horses in the New World when there went any? That's kind of a dick move on the part of god. Not like saying getting someone to stab their kid but it's up there among god dick moves.

In case the tongue was to far in my cheek, if something is divinely inspired, I expect it to be right.

 

[JaysonR]

Hebrew idiom
Historical accuracy
Harm

Out of three, at least we have seen direct address and closure on one.
Perhaps we could get back to the less subjective historical discussion.

Skyrider, how do you account for the lack of steel and horses?
Before you claim that we over reach our claim to knowledge, how do you account for the lack of what should be, and is in every other civilization employing horses and steel, overwhelming amounts of debris?

 

[Pup]

Nothing you have written changes my point; i.e., divine inspiration has been operative in the creation of some of the world's greatest inventions and works of art. How do we know that? The men and women who created said inventions and art have, themselves, stated they were divinely inspired. You are free, obviously, to disbelieve them, in which case you suppose you know more about how they accomplished what they did than they do.

The last sentence seems to imply we're arrogant, but it's true--objective observers do often know more about how someone accomplished something than the subject himself, because they've studied the phenomenon across many people and cultures, but the subject has stumbled on it for the first time.

Sleep paralysis is a wonderful example: Something which has scared millions can be reduced to a simple brain glitch that we understand has no supernatural component, and explaining that glitch helps to reassure people that some horrible supernatural creature isn't targeting them.

Here's the problem. Millions of people have claimed they've done things through divine inspiration. If one should simply believe them, it means this source of divine inspiration causes genocide, murder, torture, etc., as well as just lousy mundane poetry, as well as beloved symphonies and great art. The vast majority of divinely inspired things have nothing to do with the LDS church or (in non-Christian cultures) nothing to do with the Christian god at all, and many directly undermine the LDS church because they're done by people who claim inspiration without believing in any Mormon gods and perhaps even actively rejecting the LDS church if they're aware of it.

If that fits with your worldview or personal moral code, okayfine--folks are different.

Personally, I find it illogical, and would instead look for another explanation: that there's something in the human brain which gives people a sensation of being inspired, but in fact, it's an artifact of the brain which crosses all cultures. Heck, as an atheist, I still get that sensation when I manage to do something really unexpected and cool--it's like it's greater than I could have done alone. But I also still recognize that the result, on sober reflection, could be average dreck worthy at best of the inside of a Hallmark card, while I've seen others claim equal or lower quality is indeed straight from God because of the amazing way it makes them feel. Dunning-Kruger at work.

The problem is that truly great art--or great evil--aren't outside the range of what humans can do. There's no need to say that a god is inspiring them or helping them.