LDS a preponderence of the Evidence

[mr-pirk]

I have been trying to determine the best way to approach this topic.
In law there are atleast two standards ofmoral certaintythat may be met depending on the type of law being addressed.
Criminal-beyond a shadow of a(reasonable) doubt
Civil- judged true by a preponderence of the evidence, or, it is more likely to be true than not.

I have spent sometime studying this as it relates to Mormons.
I have seem some "pat answers or remarks" made concerning this subject.

I understand the remarks and answers, but I am not so sure the remarks and answers do a new believer much good.

To a new believer the basic remarks and answers both pro LDS and con LDS don't offer much substance. They just seem like in-fighting between two factions with minor disagreements concerning scripture, much like the current "once saved always saved" discussion going on.

Yes Mahonri I know you think you have offered much substance, I would disagree.
Substance should to a reasonable degree stand up to scrutiny from independent scholars.
You have over and over stated that we need to study pro-LDS sites to find the truth and not anti-LDS sites.
You have suggested we read the Fair.org site for a fair independent review of the LDS. The folks there and the information there by and large isn't what I or any reasonable person would call "objective".

I have tried as much as is possiable to approach this topic with a fair open mind. I admit I have bias, as much as anyone serving on any jury panel does. Judge for yourselves if I have fallen much to short of the mark to offer any reasonable conclusions.

I will do my best to address all relevent aspects of the issue.
I am trying my best to finish-up getting some new ground ready for a food plot so my time is limited to a largedegree.

Part 1.
Joseph Smith- a prophet?
J. S. (Joseph Smith) linked himself to Jesus and Moses.
" Moses, Aaron, and Joseph Smith were all named in this prophecy of Joseph in Egypt. Also, Joseph prophesied that the Book of Mormon would become a companion to the record of Judah. (compare Genesis 50: 24-26; see also 2 Nephi 3) http://scriptures.lds.org/jst/contents"

The first issue I would like to discuss is;
Is J.S. revealed to be a prophet in a manner you would expect? Example, Where are the public mircales that a person would expect a major prophet to be validated by?

It can be argued that we are given the same answer as given those who questioned Jesus and asked to see a mircale.
I don't see this answer holding up because Jesus and Mosesdid work publicmircales, just not on command.

Sorry for the lack of a better start to this thread, I spent most of this afternoon's sun light working on the food plot.

Thanks
Mr-Pirk

[Rebel Hog]

Bro.Pirk,I quess they don't want to answer your question.

[DaveH]

I haven't seen any sign of them recently. I kinda figured they left.

[Rebel Hog]

Bro.Dave, Porter is on the forum.

[DaveH]

Just after I posted that, he came on.

[Mahonri Moriancumer]

mr-pirk,

I have been trying to determine the best way to approach this topic.

I am uncertain what your topic is meant to address, I assume it will become clear as I continue to read your post.

In law there are at least two standards ofmoral certaintythat may be met depending on the type of law being addressed.

Actually, there is quite a lot more than that. Ranging from a high degree of certitude on down evidence can be designated (1) beyond a reasonable doubt, dispositive, practically certain; (2) clear and convincing evidence, nearly certain; (3) competent and substantial evidence, well over half; (4) preponderance of evidence, more than half, more likely that not; (5) probable, as in probable cause, substantial possibility; (6) plausible, reasonably suspected; (6) material, relevant, nearly possible.

It is certainly true that depending upon the issue, a certain level of evidence is required in order to reach a conclusion, for instance, a person cannot be convicted of first-degree murder unless the prosecution can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Criminal-beyond a shadow of a(reasonable) doubt
Civil- judged true by a preponderence of the evidence, or, it is more likely to be true than not.

It would depend upon the severity of the criminal or civil issue.

I have spent sometime studying this as it relates to Mormons.

Have you now. And just where did you go to do your study of law "œas it relates to Mormons?"�

I have seem some "pat answers or remarks" made concerning this subject.

Examples would be nice.

I understand the remarks and answers, but I am not so sure the remarks and answers do a new believer much good.

Are you certain about that? I have found they do me a great deal of good. Austin Farrer, in commenting on C.S. Lewis stated that:

though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.1

I think you must mean that the "œremarks and answers"� do not do the non-believer much good. For the believer, they maintain "œa climate in which belief may flourish."�

To a new believer the basic remarks and answers both pro LDS and con LDS don't offer much substance.

Once again, you must be using the term "œbeliever"� to imply one who believes as you do rather than to subjective belief in general. The term implies one who believes and therefore the answers provided do indeed assist the believer as that term is applied to LDS Christians. However, it does not assist the non-believer or the individual who rejects LDS Christianity and its claims. Since the topic is belief or lack of belief in the claims of LDS Christianity the term as you are using it becomes incomprehensible.

They just seem like in-fighting between two factions with minor disagreements concerning scripture, much like the current "once saved always saved" discussion going on.

And yet perseverance is not a "œminor disagreement."� In fact, it addresses a very vital tenant of Christianity in general; salvation.

Yes Mahonri I know you think you have offered much substance, I would disagree.

Disagree all you like, I have provided evidence. It is up to each individual to determine whether that evidence was sufficient to reach a verdict.

Substance should to a reasonable degree stand up to scrutiny from independent scholars.

I have never once censured others for critically investigating LDS Christianity. What I have censured is the presentation of LDS belief from non-LDS sources and refusing to take into account, not only anti, but pro-LDS sites in ones perusal of internet resources. You are advocating balance and I have yet to see any of that exhibited which is the reason I so often offered the pro as opposed to the anti resources (the latter having already been provided).

You have over and over stated that we need to study pro-LDS sites to find the truth and not anti-LDS sites.

This allegation is utterly baseless. I have not once "œstated that [you] need to study pro-LDS sites to find the truth and not anti-LDS sites."� I have objected to the presentation of LDS belief from non-LDS sources and the general refusal to offer pro-LDS sources equal billing or even consideration.

You have suggested we read the Fair.org site for a fair independent review of the LDS.

No, I have not. This is another specious allegation. I have suggested fairlds.org as an excellent resource to which one may refer in receiving answers to questions and concerns about the LDS Church, specifically pro-LDS replies to balance out the consistent anti-Mormon presentation of the restored gospel thus far.

You are being absurd. If one presented a pro-LDS resource and desired to then investigate the anti resources regarding the issue I would wholeheartedly encourage it (or vice versa). But by and large all I see are URL"™s to anti-Mormon websites critical of LDS claims. I am merely providing the balance.

The folks there and the information there by and large isn't what I or any reasonable person would call "objective".

Objectivity is an illusion. There is no such thing as pure objectivity.

I have tried as much as is possiable to approach this topic with a fair open mind.

Commendable although I have my reservations.

I admit I have bias, as much as anyone serving on any jury panel does.

Ah, welcome to reality. As I stated, objectivity is an illusion. We all have predispositions and predilections which render any determination we reach uniquely subjective.

Judge for yourselves if I have fallen much to short of the mark to offer any reasonable conclusions.

I indeed will.

I will do my best to address all relevent aspects of the issue.

Which issue, you are still being vague.

Part 1.
Joseph Smith- a prophet?

So then you want to discuss Joseph Smith"™s prophetic claims? And what standard of judgment do you suggest one observe in reaching a determination? I assume "œpublic miracles"� since that seems to be what you are requesting evidence of:

Is J.S. revealed to be a prophet in a manner you would expect? Example, Where are the public mircales that a person would expect a major prophet to be validated by?

Scattered throughout the early history of the restored Church are many instances of Joseph performing miraculous healings.

It can be argued that we are given the same answer as given those who questioned Jesus and asked to see a mircale.

It could be argued certainly, but I am not arguing such.

I don't see this answer holding up because Jesus and Mosesdid work publicmircales, just not on command.

And so did Joseph.

Sorry for the lack of a better start to this thread, I spent most of this afternoon's sun light working on the food plot.

Again, I fail to see where this provides the supposedly objective standard upon which one is to reach at least a "œpreponderance of evidence"� in regards to Joseph Smith"™s prophetic claims. Pure objectivity on the matter may be impossible but one can at least strive for a general measure of impure objectivity and this requires an agreed upon standard of judgment (for instance, the law in civil or criminal proceedings). Since most Christians would dismiss miracles as providing a reasonable standard upon which to determine whether one was indeed a prophet (given that false prophets can also work miracles) we are left with no standard at all. So what other standard would you suggest we use to assess Joseph"™s prophetic claims?
_________________________
Notes:
1 Austin Farrer, "The Christian Apologist," in Light on C.S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb (New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1965), p. 26.

[Mahonri Moriancumer]

Rebel and Dave,

My, my, aren"™t we impatient. As I have stated many times, I am happy to answer any question or comment on any issue. And although your hope that we abandon the site seems to be implied in the following Dave:

I kinda figured they left.

You figured wrong.

[Rebel Hog]

Bros., if you are anti-mormon, why do we keep asking the mormons question's?
Let them continue with thier beliefs and we continue with ours.
Proverb 30:5-6 (KJV) Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Revelation 22:18 (KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Revelation 22:19 (KJV) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

[Porter Rockwell]

Mr-Pirk,

Looks like Mahonri is moving on this one. Are you hitting the treadmill in preparation for an Elk hunt soon. I hope your back and hips are not as sore as mine. I'm back to running uphill with 15 pounds on my back. I hope to add the additional weight incrementally untilI get to about 50 pounds. You know what it is like to haul around a 70-80 lb. elk quarter. Ouch!

Anyways, not to hijack anything, but you asked an earleir question on anothre thread about who I pray to. The quick answer is to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ.

As to this thread, I know you have been asking for some "neutral" sites or information on our Church. Honestly I can't really say there are any. From what I have seen over the years, it seems like one is either for or against. Seems to be the same with Jesus Christ. I see and associate with people who say the love Jesus, but I really don't see them valaint in the gospel or testimony of Jesus (My own religion included!). It seems to me individuals fall on one side of the fence or the other and really can't straddle in between.

So, the same goes for good ole Joe and the followers of his Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There are some "writers" of religion that I have read extensively that state they are not opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but when you read their writings, it is not the case.

Furthernmore,I have seen documentaries on A&E or the History channel that appear to be neutral. In fairness I would say that they are, but they are 90% historical and maybe 10% doctrinal. I would assume you are looking for doctrinal "neutral" opnions. However, they are still somewhat inaccurate in their reporting.

The best "Neutral" source I could point in your direction would be the 4 volumes of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Although they were put together primarily by LDS Historians and scholars, there were other non lds scholars who not only contributed to, but helped to publish the work. Unfortunately, I think they are out of print and command a high price if you were to find them for sale online. Nevertheless, you could try you local used bookstore or library. If you are in or can get to a large metropolitan library or university library, they may have a copy. Furthermore, if not, most universities will have an inter-library loan system you can use for a small fee if you not enrolled. I hope this helps.

I'll chime in on thisthread if I think Mahonri misses anything. He usually doesn't.

God Bless,

Porter.

[Mahonri Moriancumer]

Rebel Hog,

More profound insights:

Bros., if you are anti-mormon, why do we keep asking the mormons question's?

I would accept you as a sincerely interested and concerned individual if you asked questions, accepted answers, and then discussed the adequacy of those answers. As it is, you are interested only in questions; and this is certainly anti-Mormon.

Let them continue with thier beliefs and we continue with ours.

But that does not seem to be enough for you Hog, you insist upon insulting and deriding us for our beliefs rather than providing a rational reason why we should reject them as false.

And in the words of an eminent biblical scholar frequent repetition does not an argument make, so continuing to append Proverb 30:5-6 and Revelation 22:18-19 establishes nothing.