Created: 26 December 2009
Last Updated: 07 January 2010
Last Updated: 07 January 2010
Mormanity has once again struggled to provide a satisfactorily rebuttal in this thread:
It is a common theme amongst LDS faithful to suggest that Mormonism falls perfectly into Biblical patterns. When a critic suggests that Mormonism is absurd for one reason or another, a common Mormon retort is that then so is the Bible.
The link above demonstrates this exchange. In it Mormanity implies that is not possible to prove a prophet false. When it was pointed out that Biblical patterns suggest that it is possible to prove a prophet false and if Mormonism falls into Biblical patterns perfectly, Mormonism should have a method for proving prophets false. Neither Mormanity nor his cronies could explain effectively how Mormonism proves prophets false. This is particularly problematic because the fantastic Mormon claim is that the LDS church is the only divinely inspired church on the earth, but yet it has no method of proving that a another religion is not divinely inspired.
Furthermore, I recognized that the prophets in the Bible do indeed engage in odd behavior. For example, the biblical Abraham alone decides to tell a half truth. In Mormonism Abraham was commanded by God to tell the half truth. The LDS faithful retort that this modification pales in comparison to the God order genocide in the Book of Joshua. However, Mormonism takes God’s reasoning up a notch. While no justification is given in the Book of Joshua, in the Book of Nephi God clearly states an ends-justify-the-means reasoning to command Nephi to execute someone without a civil trial. While odd on the part of God, it is not a smoking gun of contradiction on God’s part.
However, the anecdote of the lost 116 pages is. In this anecdote God commits an error in reasoning. God commanded that the small plates (the Book of Nephi) be created for a “wise purpose”. The wise purpose was revealed to be to thwart Satan inspired conspirators. Apologists claim that this excessively intricate and complex method of thwarting conspirators was necessary for at least two reasons. 1. To thwart conspirators without violating man’s agency (free will). That is God avoids putting up supernatural roadblocks to prevent evil. 2. In order to teach or instruct the faithful in some sort of unknown mystical lesson.
The Apologist claim that we will never understand Gods thought processes and hence the anecdote proves nothing. However, though Gods thoughts are not ours, this does not change the fact that God’s reasoning is flawed in this anecdote. Retranslating the Book of Lehi does not help conspirators has claimed by the God in the anecdote. It makes the situation a he-said-she-said. By not retranslating the he-said-she-said in the prophecy became permanent. Not retranslating helped the conspirators more than retranslating would have. Furthermore, the Book of Nephi does nothing to prevent the conspirators! If there truly existed a group of expert forgers lying in wait with the lost 116 pages they could have just as easily made the lost pages contradict the Book of Nephi.
To date neither Mormanity nor his cronies could explain this flawed reasoning on God's part. In this anecdote God could have avoided the error by keeping quiet. By mentioning nothing of a wise purpose and conspirators God would have successfully avoided stating flawed reasoning. Perhaps this is why in the Bible God gives no explanation for the commanded genocide in the Book of Joshua.
UPDATE: That-was-never-official-doctrine apology is very much in vogue. When applied to the-lost-116-pages-anecdote it relieves God from claiming there is a cause and effect relationship between the Small Plates and the conspirator’s plan. As such, how Satan’s plan would have worked is unclear and the plan’s defeat is equally mystical. It becomes purely a matter of faith that something terrible would have happened if the Book of Lehi was retranslated and God is free from committing an error in reason.
The LDS Church’s sin is claiming that no member of Humanity will experience true joy until they subject themselves to the power and authority of the LDS Church. The discussion above is yet another demonstration that apologists are entirely incapable of defending this claim. When the LDS Church begins to preach that brothers, sisters, children, cousins, and friends of LDS members may be led by the Spirit into other denominations where they will experience greater joy than in the LDS Church, then the LDS Church will have repented of its sins.
ReplyDeleteFAIR has updated its rebuttal here: "It is easy, as this demonstrates, to spin theories about what 'should have' or 'would have' happened in the complete absence of any evidence. That the 116 pages existed cannot be doubted. Everything besides that is speculation."
ReplyDeleteIt appears FAIR has taken my advice and gone for the that-was-never-official-doctrine defense. However, this defense essentially leads to declaring Doctrine and Covenants 10 (DC10) not canon and nothing more than uninspired speculation. Removing from the canon is not unprecedented (linked here)
It is impossible to never be wrong when the goal post can move at will. Canon can be added and removed at will and the definition of truth claims can change with the prevailing thought.
The miracle of modern revelation. The only question is who has the power to remove canon. It appears FAIR believes it has that power.