I'm intrigued with philosophy. I'm by no means a philosopher and have no education whatsoever in this regard. However, I find that philosophers can be the greatest debaters and put out thoughts, that instead of telling the person the truth of the matter, they actually make the person think for themselves.

In the movie The Matrix during kung fu training, Morpheus was teaching Neo the rules of physics in the computer simulation. Some things that he said to make him think for himself were:

- Do you think my strength and speed have anything to do with my muscles in this place?
- Do you think that's air you're breathing?

So my goal here, is to see what sorts of philosophical arguments or points that one can use that instead of stating the facts, can actually induce thought in a TBM's mind.

I'm particularly also searching for ways to allude to the cognitive dissonance that goes on in their minds when they hear of certain facts regarding church history, but seem to be able to so easily reconcile those historical facts with their beliefs by either dismissing them, or coming up with or accepting unfounded apologetics.

I think that perhaps very close comparisons to that of other religions. Perhaps telling them a ridiculous story of Joseph Smith or BY, but at first telling them it was some leader of another church or cult, and when they see just how ridiculous it is, then point out who it actually was.

Thoughts?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2012 10:14AM by Mormoney.

There are some very powerful philosophical arguments against the Mormons. They are, however only powerful to those who are willing to consider the questions, a closed mind is a very difficult thing to open.

The ordinance requirements are a logical mindfuck. Why is god unable to save a soul without these ordinances? It is my understanding that Mormon/most other gods are omnipotent. With all power god is unable to save a soul unless it is first baptized.

The established and hierarchical church requirement makes no sense. God being omniscient must be aware that his creations don't exist in a bubble and the whole idea that salvation is available only in an organization would preclude vast numbers of his creations. A Mormon might say that is why proxy work is done, but see point number one.

If you want to be more specific to Mormonism, the idea of an appointed mouth piece is very hard to justify. God knowing that his creations will screw up, has decided to create an organization that is unable to question it's leaders. What if the leader does decide to screw up, god is left no option. A Mormon would say that god would never allow the prophet to lead the church astray. That however isn't true since he has allowed each prophet to seemingly teach false doctrine.

What is more likely, that god leads the Mormons or that Mormons lead god?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2012 11:30AM by jacob.

First, the difference between science and philosophy is primarily one of emphasis, not of substance. Both involve ascertaining data (facts) and making inferences (logic) from those facts.

Science proceeds primarily by determining the facts by empirical investigation and applying such facts to theories using logical inference. However, the logic behind such inferences is largely intuitive, rather than formal.

Philosophy takes the facts as given, and theories as proposed, and applies a conceptual and logical analysis to determine appropriate inferences, while critiquing inferences proposed by others, including scientists.

So, in refuting Mormonism, understanding both the relevant empirical facts and underlying logic are important, (i.e. science and philosophy.) Most of the arguments against Mormonism involve essentially both.

Sometimes, however, logic (and philosophy) can stand on its own in an argument. This is when a "reductio ad absurdum" type argument is used. In this case, the premises of an opposing view are taken as given, and then shown to lead to an absurd conclusion.

Here is one example of such an argument.

(1) God's purpose is fundamentally defined by Mormonism as follows: "This is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." In other words, God is active in his attempt to lead people to "eternal life" and this activity is the sum and substance of his relationship with man. (No Mormon would argue against this premise)

(2) In the Mormon sense, "eternal life" means life with God in the Celestial kingdom, and encompasses (a) Acceptance of Christ; (b) Acceptance of Joseph Smith and the restoration; (c) Mormon baptism; and (d) Temple covenants.

(3) Only a small fraction of people on earth qualify for "eternal life" today, and if the history of the world is considered, the number who have qualified for "eternal life" in the Mormon sense is statistically very small. (Someone can easily do the math.)

(4) Therefore, God's entire "work and glory" appears to be an abject failure. Why?

Now, a Mormon might respond that human beings have free agency, and that God cannot be held responsible for their free choice to reject Mormonism.

But, regardless of free agency, God IS responsible for the evidence he makes available to humankind, as well as the evidence he allows to become available that is inconsistent with Mormonism. In short, he is responsible for the data from which acceptance or rejection of Mormonism is determined. There is nothing about human agency, for example, that would prevent God from stacking the evidential deck to at least assist in the reasonable success of his "work and glory" e.g. by providing a more compelling revelation of himself, or even providing solid physical evidence of the truth of Mormonism's historical claims.

The fact that such few people find Mormonism acceptable, let alone compelling, suggests that God is (a) extremely incompetent; (b) unfair and deceitful; or (c) is not interested in the immortality and eternal life of man after all. In any case, Mormonism fails.

Deep, well thought out and brilliant! Exactly the type of argument that I'm looking for. Thank you.

So from a TBM perspective the counter-argument to this would be.

God is successfully fulfilling his purpose. The only requirement for earth life is to receive a body. Other than that everything else can be worked out in the spirit world via baptisms for the dead, etc.

That's the response I would anticipate as well. I think the principles are there and one could further add to the argument using further details.

For example, what then is the point of having the church on earth at all? If having living prophets is vital to the guidance of people on earth to know what must be done to return to him.

Why couldn't all the baptisms for the dead just be performed during the supposed millenium?

Yep if it is God's purpose and if the LDS church is so important in obtaining that purpose why is he so bad and getting the word out?

For me the biggest philosophical questions are:

Why would God need to kill his son to forgive us?

Why would God make Nephi murder Laban when he could have resolved the manner any other way?

Why is obedience more important than morality?

Yes. There is an apologetic argument for everything.

However, the point is a bit more problematic than a simple referral to the spirit world, or the millenium. The failure of Mormonism (and God) reflects facts and related evidence that God could easily have manipulated to favor "his work and glory" in this life. By failing to do so--with the assumption that his success rate will change in the spirit world, or in the millenium--does not explain the failings of God with respect to this life. However successful he might be in "the long run" does not explain his failure in the short run. This is particularly true when the evidential environment created (or allowed) to exist by God operates to deceive people into thinking that Mormonism is obviously false. This life becomes a cruel trick, without meaningful purpose. Also, we might ask, does the "my work and my glory" scripture not apply to this life in isolation from eternity? If not, why bother to even state it?

An analogy might help. Suppose a highly touted baseball player has a batting average of .100 after a full season. He explains that we should not worry because next year he will do great. Sure enough, next year he bats .400. Now, the .400 is all well and good, but the first year failings are not thereby explained. There were still causes and consequences related to that first year that are left unexplained by subsequent success. Moreover, no matter how successful the baseball player might be, the first year failure remains. And when evaluating the player, we might say he was great--except for that first year, and we might look to an explanation. Maybe he was injured, or inexperienced, or had personal problems. Unfortunately, God does not have such excuses.

In short, God's failings in this life must be explained, and this cannot be done simply by appealing to the claim that everthing will eventually be taken care of. Taking care of it later, does not explain the obvious failing now!

Hmm, the only response I can think of that doesn't sound like a completely pathetic excuse is something like, 'to God, time does not exist, therefore from his perspective, there is no such distinction.'

Of course, Mormon 'prophets' may well have contradicted that...aside from that, I suppose the substance of that argument is still little more than 'God works in mysterious ways'.

+1 Henry - well said.

Well put--I'll name that the Mormon incompetence corollary to Epicurus.

(For anyone who's wondering, Epicurus is known for the following quotation:
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"

Or more commonly stated thus:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?")

This might be far too simplistic but I ask misshies-
We pray to God thru Jesus ... Yes?
Jesus was Jewish .. Yes?
He is in the image of God? ..
So we are praying to a man with very dark skin?

how does that White thing work in our church? Is Jesus white now?

and then- Where would Jesus want me to be on Sunday? 3hr block or working at the soup kitchen downtown for the hungry?

seems to get the misshies confused .. but thinking

You do have to be somewhat careful with this route, however, because there are some very bright and clever apologists that will use philosophical arguments in favor of Mormonism. To be specific, they will use philosophical arguments to try to get you to ignore basic facts and science in favor of faith.

In the 20th century, there were numerous philosophers and intellectual movements that attempted to "deconstruct" the so called "grand narratives" of the Enlightenment and science in general. Google "Derrida," "post structuralism" or "Richard Rorty" if you want to read more about these various ideas.

What the clever apologists will try to do is tell you to ignore the troubling issues of Mormonism because these philosophers have aptly demonstrated that the scientific method is also partly based on faith (a hope for things not seen) since the method involves testing a hypothesis based on unproved (i.e., unseen) assumptions. What they are essentially doing is trying to "deconstruct" the grand narrative of science in order to get you to instead believe in the grand narrative of Mormonism.

It's a complete mindfuck in my opinion, but I know lots and lots of very smart and educated TBMs that rely on this type of philosophical argument to maintain their belief in TSCC despite knowing all about the troubling issues.

Interesting point. I think that some weight should be given to occam's razor which from what I've seen, unless someone can show otherwise (which I doubt) clearly demonstrates that mormonism, along with religion in general is based entirely on a false premise.

I think you're right, that any and all apologetics in support of mormonism or christianity is a mindfuck and while some intelligent people that are aware of all problems with the religion, that can still reconcile it using complex apologetics, philosophy etc are trying very hard to convince themselves of something that would otherwise be very difficult to believe. This is more easily done however when one is paid by the religion they support or their livelihood is reliant on retaining that belief.

IMHO, they still lose when it comes to occam's razor and not sure how they reconcile that one in their minds.

Outward complexity may hide the inward simplicity. Take evolution for example.

What's more likely?

Two giant American civilizations wiped each other out without a trace including DNA evidence of Jewish ancestry?

Or

Joseph Smith and friends made the Book of Mormon up?

This questioning can work in lots of scenarios in context of the claims of Mormonism.

Good example of "reductio ad absurdum"

Mormons don't believe in Occam's Razor. They instead believe in Joseph's Razor. They tell you to get a testimony from asking God (Moroni 10:3-5). After you have that testimony, you need to look at all facts and ask yourself "which explanation of these facts best supports my a priori belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet (no matter how inprobable they are)?" Joseph's Razor requires you to accept the explanation that best supports Joseph Smith's prophetic claims.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2012 03:35PM by Onmywayout . . . someday.

Another "reductio ad absurdum" if it's pointed out to them that way

"Occam's Razor" is an intuitive principle that states essentially that a simple explanation is to be preferred over a more complex explanation.

Although it is often cited with the assumption that it is somehow a correct principle, it is scientifically and philosophically false. Why? (1) There is no empirical evidence to support it. As a matter of historical fact, simple explanations and theories have NOT proven to be more likely true than complex theories. (2) It is logically defective. There is no valid inference to support the argument that if an explanation is simple it is therefore more likely to be true.

In addition to the above, there is a host of problems associated with deciding whether a theory is simple or complex.

In short, appeal to Occam's Razor should be abandoned.

I generally agree. I blame Carl Sagan for its enduring popularity.

While you may be correct on that, it's clear that occam's razor does in fact fit when it comes to mormonism being false. Not necessarily a prerequisite however.

I agree in debate.
I disagree for talking to Mormons.

Mormons deal far more in sensationalism, analogies, metaphors, & parables than logic & facts.

Because of that, Occam's Razor works fairly well.

It will never prove that the church isn't true... but it can (& often does) seed their mind with a thought they can't shake.

For me the 1 thought I could never totally shake as a TBM was "what if JS was schizophrenic?" It could explain many of the gradious things he claimed, they tend to be very intelligent yet often perceived as less intelligent or common, the question of integrity and why someone would willfully lead you astray goes out the window, etc...

While that wasn't why I left the church (& I don't actually subscribe to that theory) it was the only question I never had a full answer for.

In my opinion, Occam's Razor is more a conversation technique than a debate technique. It's a way to pose tough questions while not forcing the other side to answer & get defensive.

Onmywayout . . . someday Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You do have to be somewhat careful with this
> route, however, because there are some very bright
> and clever apologists that will use philosophical
> arguments in favor of Mormonism. To be specific,
> they will use philosophical arguments to try to
> get you to ignore basic facts and science in favor
> of faith.

Philosophical arguments can at times be deceptive and tricky. However, all bad philosophical arguments can be exposed by pointing to false premises or faulty inferences. Historically, the trouble is usually found in unsubstantiated premises, some of which were thought intuitively true, but which later turned out on scientific grounds to be false.

> What the clever apologists will try to do is tell
> you to ignore the troubling issues of Mormonism
> because these philosophers have aptly demonstrated
> that the scientific method is also partly based on
> faith (a hope for things not seen) since the
> method involves testing a hypothesis based on
> unproved (i.e., unseen) assumptions. What they
> are essentially doing is trying to "deconstruct"
> the grand narrative of science in order to get you
> to instead believe in the grand narrative of
> Mormonism.

The "grand narrative of science" is on solid footing, even by Mormon standards. Notwithstanding, the limits of science generally, and scientific knowledge, can sometimes be exploited by "gap" type arguments. However, with Mormonism, this is far more difficult because Mormonism makes secular claims that are well within established scientific scrutiny. That means that Mormonism is in the difficult position of accepting the "grand narrative of science" while denying its specific and uncontroversial findings. As an example, population genetics clearly shows that the BofM's secular claims are false by a high degree of probability. Thus, to maintain its BM theology, Mormonism thus must back away from hard science and cling to an irrational probability calculus based purely on what is possible, rather than what is probable. However, by doing so, their commitment to the "grand narrative of science" is undermined.

> It's a complete mindfuck in my opinion, but I know
> lots and lots of very smart and educated TBMs that
> rely on this type of philosophical argument to
> maintain their belief in TSCC despite knowing all
> about the troubling issues.

If you look at the arguments, you will see that they all fail, and that such TBMs are simply relying on faith.

I've picked up philosophy as a major because I have found that being raised in the church denied the ability for my critical thought processes to flourish.

There's a book here on the site titled, "The Double Bind" which was is great read. In the book Marion states that we internalize reason to be Satan. She even cites where certain Mormon leaders have stated there is a war against reason because it is of Satan (terrible paraphrasing here, I apologize).

I find this to be, sadly, very accurate.

Mormonism utilizes circular reasoning:

"Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with".[1] The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted."


I recall asking church leaders and family members certain questions to only have them state faith based responses. Throughout the years I have even gone to http://mormon.org/chat to test it out (by asking questions, and seeing their responses).

Thought CANNOT be induced as it does not follow the strand of circular logic (I remember going through that circle over and over before I knew I just HAD to get out).

In the "Dould bind" Marion also states that one of last stages of Mormonism is "psychological cannibalization". Where we forefit our identity to the church and become part of it as a whole, ingested essentially (terrible paraphrasing).

Logic is not possible, and thusly neither is reason because it is Satan. This accompanied with the notion that we are simultaneously losing our identity to the church, when our identity/reason is personified as being satan, can be very very hard. That's why people become furious and negate things you state that are logical (in the church) because they literally believe the voice of reason that is saying "they're right" is the voice of satan that's trying to lure them away from the church. See circular reasoning.

An interesting philosophical blog post about the Mormon concept of God: http://www.catholicscience.com/deepsoftime/2011/02/06/reason-mormonism-and-atheism/

Philosophy is great & Facts are great. The problem is the audience MUST be honest, or the thought is wasted.

I often find that mormons are more willing to THINK truth, than to SAY truth.

So, I often will say, "I don't want you to respond or answer, but just think about this in your mind." (I usually give the excuse of "that way we can avoid contention" which they eat up)

Then they can ponder your questions without fear of showing weakness by considering them.

The one that mormons are almost always willing to think about is "Has your God changed? Even a shadow of change?"

Then you can state Biblical changes (especially from old to new), LDS policy changes, etc...

The other one they are willing to think about is "why do <insert another religion> also feel the spirit testify that they are right in their beliefs?"

Again- if they were to answer out loud, you'd get the standard mormon doctrines about "God tailors messages to the audience" or "people convince themselves, but I know it's true because I saw a miracle", etc...

But if they just think about it, they feel less confronted, less defensive, and they will find themselves thinking about it again before they go to bed that night... and maybe the next day.

But you have to keep it gentle, or they switch to a defensive position and you lose any chance of them actually pondering.

Occam's Razor doesn't work in all cases, especially in quantum physics. However in the case of Mormonism I think it works quite well when you ask the question: Did Joseph Smith find and translate golden plates which were never witnessed but with "spiritual eyes," and then taken up into heaven? Or did he invent a religion?

I also like to preface that one with some that TBMs are eager to say "yes" to (to get them in the pattern of recognizing the blatantly obvious). Like:

Does Benny Hinn heal people through the power of God, or is it a scam?

Does the Catholic church tithe people to forward God's work, or do they just want to have a bunch of money/power?

Then bust out any JS questions like:
Are the passages in the BoM that are identical to other sources divinely inspired, or were they plagiarized?

Did JS's neighbors & followers lie, or did he force plural marriage on women including married women & young girls?

Are the Abrahamic facsimilies genuine articles that just happened to inspire later Egyptians to make funerary texts, or are they just funerary texts?

Did Charles Aston confirm JS's translation and then change his mind and tear up the note, or did Martin Harris just fib?

Is the Pearl of Great Price a divinely inspired version of the creation story to rectify the problems with the biblical text, or did they just jive better with the temple cermony?

Are the masons a defunct branch of the gospel clinging to a piece of the ancient past, or did JS jsut rip off their ceremony because he was a mason?

etc...

I've got one.

1. God is omniscient. In other words, he knows everything.

2. Everything includes the past present and future. If God doesn't know the future, then from whence cometh prophesies?

3. If God knows the future, which Mormons must accept, then the future must be destiny.

4. Destiny and free agency CANNOT co-exist. For example, if it is my destiny to eat an apple on the 3rd of January at 12:31 P.M. in January. I cannot have the free agency to NOT eat the apple, otherwise it was not my destiny to begin with, and God would have known that I wouldn't eat the apple, thus creating for me another destiny wherein I do not eat an apple on the 3rd of January at 12:31 P.M.

.....your example is one of the dicotomies of the Christian life. Destiny and free agency (volition) DO indeed co-exist. God's omniscience is unsearchable, without measure. His knowledge of future events does NOT interfere with our volition....He simply knows it all. God is SO awesome, that He is able to comprehend, at one moment, all things past, present, future. He even knows the possible as well as the actual. This is difficult for us ex-mos to understand, since all our lives we have been taught the similarities between God and man, rather than the differences...