• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

nutshell

nutshell

Well-Known Member
Autodidact said:
Of course there are many truths that we don't know yet, which is fascinating, and for all we know it could turn out to be that everything in the BoM is true. It could also be that Joseph Smith was a complete con and fraud. So let's just deal with what we know now. Lot's of things may be true. It may turn out that the moon is made of green cheese, and we just haven't found the evidence yet. That's no reason to believe it is. In the same way, the BoM may turn out to be true...but there's no reason to believe it is.
Click to expand...

OK. I can mostly agree with you here. What I would say, however, is that whether the events of the BoM actually happened or not is irrelevant to the Truth it intends to convey: that Jesus is the Christ.

The part I disagree with is when you say "there's no reason to believe [the BoM is true]." Of course there is reason. In fact, DeepShadow has given many reasons. Your decision not to do further research or accept his evidence does not qualify you to state there is "no reason."

Autodidact said:
I don't know that it's a scientific truth or not; the research is still being done. And no, I don't. In general, I think it's most reasonable to base my beliefs on the evidence. You?
Click to expand...

Yes. I base my beliefs on evidence and the BoM discussion is largely irrelevant since I'm not a literalist. My beef with you :D, is that you claim there is no evidence rather than admitting there is evidence that you reject. There's a big difference.

Autodidact said:
If you have to devolve into post-modernist, no way of knowing anything, anybody can believe anything without evidence and it's all equally valid, you should probably go back and examine your motivations, because you're in big trouble.
Click to expand...

Oh, there are ways of knowing things, I'm not going that route. And if you want to talk about trouble, I suggest you examine your posts and reconsider your statements that there is "no evidence" and "no reason."
 
Melissa G

Melissa G

Non Veritas Verba Amanda
Autodidact said:
What evidence?
Click to expand...
Exactly, the BOM makes quite a number of extraordinary claims, non of which are verifiable by historical and archealogical evidence, therfore it is a fabrication. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.End of Story.

Smith might as well of dropped the historical nonsense, and simply wrote a new theology, for whatever that's worth.


Melissa
 
DeepShadow

DeepShadow

White Crow
Melissa G said:
Exactly, the BOM makes quite a number of extraordinary claims, non of which are verifiable by historical and archealogical evidence, therfore it is a fabrication. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.End of Story.
Click to expand...

Your error is italicized in bold, above. Failing to support a claim doesn't make it a fabrication, logically speaking. It makes it unsupported scientifically, which is not the same thing. Saying it's a fabrication is a positive statement, with its own burden of proof.
 
Melissa G

Melissa G

Non Veritas Verba Amanda
V=. Failing to support a claim doesn't make it a fabrication, logically speaking. I highlighted your error, because actaully the opposite is a truer statement.

:)Melissa
 
madhatter85

madhatter85

Transhumanist
Melissa G said:
V=. Failing to support a claim doesn't make it a fabrication, logically speaking. I highlighted your error, because actaully the opposite is a truer statement.

:)Melissa
Click to expand...

wrong, there have been criminals that get off the hook because fo "reasonable doubt" or a "lack of evidence to prosecute" because they cannot prove that they actually comitted the crime.

Just because there is a lack of evidence does not mean that it is true. a lack of evidence is a lack therof.

Fabrication -
2.something fabricated, esp. an untruthful statement: His account of the robbery is a complete fabrication
Evidence -
1.that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2.something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

they are not linked by any means. only in twisted version of webster's dictionary that resides in your cerebrum.
 
DeepShadow

DeepShadow

White Crow
Melissa G said:
V=. Failing to support a claim doesn't make it a fabrication, logically speaking. I highlighted your error, because actaully the opposite is a truer statement.
Click to expand...

Is there any point in asking you to cite source data? Before you bust out the logic stick, look into type I and type II errors in statistics. I can cite your error out of a book on my shelf. Can you do the same?
 
Bishka

Bishka

Veteran Member
Melissa G said:
You obviously do lol.

Melissa
Click to expand...


Really now?

Could you point where I took one of your posts, said the same thing in opposite and spit it back out? How about where you continually refused to cite sources and deny everything that is put in front of you?
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
DeepShadow said:
Your error is italicized in bold, above. Failing to support a claim doesn't make it a fabrication, logically speaking. It makes it unsupported scientifically, which is not the same thing. Saying it's a fabrication is a positive statement, with its own burden of proof.
Click to expand...

Right, we can't know for sure. He may also have been a raving lunatic. All we can know is that it's false, not his intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top