LDS Joseph Smith- traveling jeweler with his travelers tales and false prophecies
- Thread starter createdtoworship
- Start date
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I personally don't believe that mormons should quote Bible.
what I mean is this...you are referring to a passage that was written thousands of years before BOM. Yet BOM plagiarizes that work within it's own translation effort
I could be wrong here, but the Bible condemns adding to scripture in revelation and other parts of the Bible.
so taking a full book of Isaiah for example and posting word for word KJV in any work is plagiarism.
now it is not copy-write, because the statute of limitations on copy-write for KJV is expired. Not NKJV, and other KJV off shoots. Just the 1611 and others from 16-1700.
basically quoting the KJV is fine, but don't use it to make a point, when you have not proven that the BOM is legitimate yet.
it begs the question as to it's authority.
that would be like me saying God says in the Bible, that the Bible is true.
that would be similar reasoning, yet subtly circular.
So please, if you wish....please refer to pearl of great price, and BOM but not verses that are found in earlier works like the original works of another book -the KJV.
I believe in conclusion the BOM and pearl will say "another testament of Jesus Christ" which proves the point that they should not be copying text from other works.
now if we actually had possessions of the plates, that would be another story.
thanks
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It's quite natural for a Mormon to quote the Bible, as we spend over half of our time in church studying it (for example, my Sunday School lesson this week was on the book of James).
Non-Mormons disagreeing with Mormon interpretations of the Bible is also quite natural (else they would be Mormon). Just like it's quite natural for a Baptist to disagree with a Catholic interpretation of the Bible (else that Baptist would instead be a Catholic).
A common misconception.
The book of Revelation condemns altering the Book of Revelation. Similarly, book of Deuteronomy condemns altering the Book of Deuteronomy.
Upvote
0
What most people dismiss as "money digging" was the then-present equivalent to playing the lottery. Most folks don't seem to understand this.
As it is, Joseph was *never* convicted in court of anything untoward, contrary to what most critics of the church claim. And as apologist Jeff Lindsay points out, there are Biblical prophets who were guilty of far worse than what JS was ever accused of, raising to question of why this should disqualify him.
Upvote
0
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Hate to cut this idea short. But our twistings of their intentions is arbitrary as put forth in the op. You must quote solilid links to official Mormon literature if you wish to put forth this argument. Now if you and iron man wish to retract that only official Mormon works are accepted then you must allow all Mormon works in, such as mkonkie Mormon doctrine and bringham Young's early works. Most likely that does too much damage so you are forced to interject unofficial posts while rejecting the same quality post from a non Mormon.
So you can create any rule you wish just please apply it to both sides. The.
So you can create any rule you wish just please apply it to both sides. The.
Upvote
0
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Hate to cut this idea short. But our twistings of their intentions is arbitrary as put forth in the op. You must quote solilid links to official Mormon literature if you wish to put forth this argument. Now if you and iron man wish to retract that only official Mormon works are accepted then you must allow all Mormon works in, such as mkonkie Mormon doctrine and bringham Young's early works. Most likely that does too much damage so you are forced to interject unofficial posts while rejecting the same quality post from a non Mormon.
So you can create any rule you wish just please apply it to both sides. The.
So you can create any rule you wish just please apply it to both sides. The.
Upvote
0
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Just because money digging is a gamble and the lottery is a gamble does not equate the two. Poodles are dogs and Labradors are dogs that does not mean poodles are Labradors. You are committing the basic logical fallacy of equivocation here.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
When it comes to issues of theology, there is an issue with critics of the church deliberately quoting unofficial sources, often sources that present fringe or heterodox theology (at best) as if it was official. This is why we make it a point to note whenever this happens so that we can try to point people towards what is official.
However, we're now talking about a matter of history, not theology. You yourself cited Fawn Brodie, which is about as far from "accepted" as one can get. It should be no surprise, then, that we use non-official sources to discuss history as well.
Upvote
0
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
you are using an argument from assertion here. You assert yourself as official, while condemning all other sources that you don't like. Sorry, but you must apply the same arguments for both sides, you either are, or are not an official mormon source. If you are not, then your posts are 100% arbitrary, and hearsay, and not to even be replied to.
secondly, besides asserting your own posts as authoritative while dismission well known mormon historians and theologians like bringham young himself as not authoritative, you should really think about your position. What I do is examine every piece of argument for truth value. Not reject it because it is not official. You are guilty of labelling at this point, and this is why you will never win this argument. you are cutting off your nose to spite the face. ad hominem, fallacy. You attack my sources without actually discussing what was wrong. Again this is assertion as well, a fallacy.
some other fallacies, that I would verse myself with if I was you, which may help in the future....
Self-Defeating Argumentation:
A mechanics trainee (possibly dyslexic) was unbolting a piece of equipment at a manufacturing plant in western US.
This guy would loosen the bolt with his right hand. His arm would get tired so He’d switch arms. But Instead of loosening it he would tighten it. His arm would get tired so He’d switch arms again. He would start loosening again. And He did this several times, before the Mechanic lead pointed it out. A personal friend worked their and told me about that story, still laughs about it. But it’s a perfect example of circular reasoning and a decent example self-defeating actions:
The faster he worked the faster he undid what he had done already. The harder he worked, the harder he undid his work. Because in essence, he was fighting himself.
Self-Defeating arguments at their clearest. (spotting logic that simply self-destructs on its own without any refutation on your part).
(for example picking oneself up by their own bootstrap is an example of circular reasoning, one must remove the boot before the strap becomes a useful lifting device, otherwise it is quite circular, and self defeating as well, as one is fighting against oneself)See, you can use whatever rules you want in debate, just make sure you apply it to both sides of the debate, not just one side.
For example one I debated a guy who said “God of the Bible is evil,”
But later confessed He didn’t really believe in absolute moral truth.
But He was absolutely sure about the moral truth of God’s inherent evil.
He didn’t apply the same rule to both sides of the debate.
My favorite author once said this, and rightly so:
“Although few would admit it, our rejection of
religious and moral truth is often on volitional rather than intellectual
grounds—we just don’t want to be held accountable to any moral
standards or religious doctrine. So we blindly accept the self-defeating
truth claims of politically correct intellectuals who tell us that truth does not
exist; everything is relative; there are no absolutes; it’s all a matter of opinion;
you ought not judge; religion is about faith, not facts! Perhaps Augustine was
right when he said that we love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it
when it convicts us. Maybe we can’t handle the truth.
-Geisler, N. L., & Turek, F. (2004). I Don't Have Enough Faith
to Be an Atheist. Crossway Books.
Circular and arbitrary arguments are not useful because anyone who
denies the conclusion would also deny the premise (since the
conclusion is essentially the same as the premise).
So, the argument,
“Evolution must be true because it is a fact,”
-while technically valid, is fallacious because the arguer has merely assumed
what he is trying to prove.
again we must go OUTSIDE the statement to declare it true.
Arbitrary assumptions are not to be used
in logical reasoning because we could equally well assume the exact
opposite. It would be just as legitimate to argue,
“Evolution cannot
be true because it is false.”
It should also be noted that there are certain special cases where
circular reasoning is unavoidable and not necessarily fallacious.
Remember that begging the question is not invalid; it is considered
fallacious because it is arbitrary. But what if it were not arbitrary?
There are some situations where the conclusion of an argument must be
assumed at the outset, but is not arbitrary.2 Here is an example:
Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
We can make an argument.
Therefore, there must be laws of logic.
This argument is perfectly reasonable, and valid. But it is subtly
circular. This argument is using a law of logic called modus tollens
to prove that there are laws of logic. So, we have tacitly assumed
what we are trying to prove. But it is absolutely unavoidable in this
case. We must use laws of logic to prove anything—even the existence
of laws of logic.
However, the above argument is not arbitrary. We do have a good reason
for assuming laws of logic, since without them we couldn’t prove
anything. And perhaps most significantly, anyone attempting to
disprove the existence of laws of logic would have to first assume
that laws of logic do exist in order to make the argument. He would
refute himself.
Most of the examples of circular reasoning used by evolutionists are
of the fallacious begging-the-question variety—they are arbitrary.
Consider the evolutionist who argues:
“The Bible cannot be correct because it says that stars were
created in a single day; but we now know that it takes millions of
years for stars to form.”
By assuming that stars form over millions of years, the critic has
taken for granted that they were not supernaturally created. He has
tacitly assumed the Bible is wrong in his attempt to argue that the
Bible is wrong; he has begged the question. Another example is:
“We know evolution must have happened, because we are here!”
This argument begs the question, since the way we got here is the very
point in question.
Watch for arguments that subtly presume (in an arbitrary way) what the
critic is attempting to prove. In particular, evolutionists will often
take for granted the assumptions of naturalism, uniformitarianism,
strict empiricism (the notion that all truth claims are answered by
observation and experimentation), and sometimes evolution itself. But,
of course, these are the very claims at issue. When an evolutionist
takes these things for granted, he is not giving a good logical reason
for his position; he is simply arbitrarily asserting his position."
above clip from:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/17/logical-fallacies-begging-the-question]Logical
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
